The death penalty heavier than the executive and instructor in the murder of three people, including the company president, Osaka High Court

In cases such as the murder of the company president and three former gangsters, the Osaka High Court in the second trial sentenced the defendant, who was accused of acting, to death following the first trial.

The defendant, who was the instructor of this case, was sentenced to life imprisonment in another trial, and even in the second trial, the executor was sentenced to a heavier sentence than the instructor.

From 2009 to 2011, three people, including the company president and former gangsters, were killed. Defendant Chen Harune (50) was murdered as an instructor, and Defendant Takashi Uemura (54) was murdered as an executive. I was accused of murder in captivity.

In a separate lay judge trial, Chen was found guilty of one murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, while Uemura was found guilty and sentenced to death. ..

Defendant Chen's sentence, which was sentenced in advance by the second trial, was imprisonment for an indefinite period, and the sentence of the executor was heavier than that of the instructor. Therefore, the judgment of the second trial of Defendant Uemura was drawing attention.

In the judgment on the 19th, Judge Eiichi Miyazaki of the Osaka High Court confirmed the instructions of Defendant Chen and sentenced Defendant Uemura to death following the first trial.

In the ruling, he explained that the sentence was heavier than the instructor, "it cannot be said to be imbalanced because the evidence and fact-finding are different in separate trials."

The weight of the instructor and the sentence is twisted

In the lay judge trial of the first trial, Chen, who was the mastermind of a series of cases and was the instructor, was sentenced to life imprisonment, while Uemura, who was the executor, was sentenced to death, and the weight of the sentence was twisted. became.

This is because in the lay judge trials that were held separately, the testimony of the acquaintance of Defendant Uemura was treated differently regarding the murder of the company president, and the judgment of guilty or not guilty was divided.

There is little evidence in this case, such as the victim's body not being found, and the prosecution made the testimony of an acquaintance that "the defendant Uemura confessed that he had killed the company president at the direction of defendant Chen" as a pillar to prove guilty. Was there.

Regarding this testimony, Chen's request for murder was not adopted as evidence because it was just a "hearing story", and he was acquitted of the murder of the company president.

On the other hand, in the case of Defendant Uemura, he said that he could trust the murder of the company president based on the story he heard directly from the defendant himself, and based on this testimony, he convicted Uemura and found that Chen had instructed him. I did.

Then, in each of the two trials, it was concluded that the instructor was sentenced to life imprisonment and the executive was sentenced to death, similar to the judgment of the first trial.

Chen has appealed to the Supreme Court for life imprisonment, but the prosecution has abandoned the appeal and will no longer be sentenced to death.