KNPU Cadet First-Stage Exam key terms

The objective and subjective facts that a statute requires before conduct counts as a particular crime, such as an act, a result, causation, and the offender's intent or negligence. Prosecutors must prove each element beyond reasonable doubt.

The judgment that conduct matching the elements of an offense also violates the legal order, unless a justification such as self-defense or necessity removes that violation. It is assessed objectively, not by the offender's personal morality.

The personal blameworthiness of an offender, requiring the capacity to understand right from wrong, awareness of the wrongful act, and the expectation that lawful conduct was possible. It limits punishment even when the act was unlawful.

The offender's awareness and acceptance of the facts constituting an offense, including the result. Japanese criminal law distinguishes intent to do the act from intent toward the result, and negligence covers cases where awareness was lacking.

Failure to exercise the care a reasonable person owes in the circumstances, resulting in a criminal result. Criminal negligence generally requires a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and a foreseeable result.

Justified force used to protect one's own or another's rights against an imminent, unlawful infringement, exercised within necessary limits. Excess force may reduce but does not eliminate criminal liability.

Self-defense that exceeds the limits of necessity, typically because the response was disproportionate to the attack. Punishment may be reduced or, depending on circumstances, the act may still be excused entirely.

Conduct that causes harm to another's legally protected interest to avert an imminent danger to one's own or another's interest, where no other reasonable means existed and the harm caused does not exceed the harm avoided.

The mental capacity to be held criminally responsible, judged by the offender's ability to understand right and wrong and to act accordingly. Insanity or diminished capacity can lead to acquittal or reduced punishment.

A mistaken understanding of facts that, if true, would mean the offense's elements were not met. Such a mistake generally negates intent, whereas a mistake about the legal meaning of an act usually does not.

Liability of persons who participate in another's crime, covering joint principals, instigators, and accessories. Each participant's liability is evaluated separately, and the acts of one may be attributed to others within the common plan.

Two or more persons who jointly commit a crime under a shared intent and a division of roles. Each is punished as a principal, and acts within the common plan may be attributed to all participants.

Causing another person who was not already determined to commit a crime to decide to do so. The instigator is punished as an accomplice, and liability depends on the principal actually carrying out the offense.

Helping another's crime by providing means, opportunity, or encouragement. The aider must know of the principal's criminal purpose, and punishment is generally lighter than for the principal.

Beginning to carry out a crime without completing it, where the law punishes attempts. It requires an act that has moved beyond mere preparation and creates a real risk to the protected interest.

The point at which preparatory conduct becomes an attempt because it directly threatens the protected legal interest. Identifying this point determines whether attempt liability and voluntary abandonment rules apply.

A person who has begun a crime but voluntarily stops before completion, or prevents the result, may receive a reduced or waived punishment. The abandonment must be voluntary rather than forced by external obstacles.

The rule that no one may be punished except under a law in force at the time of the act, with clear definition of the prohibited conduct and penalty. It bars retroactive punishment and vague offenses.

A constitutional and criminal-law guarantee that conduct cannot be punished under a law enacted after it occurred. It protects reliance on the law existing when a person acted and limits retroactive disadvantage.

The constitutional rule that arrests, searches, and seizures generally require a warrant issued by a judge on probable cause. Warrantless action is permitted only in narrowly recognized exceptions, such as consent or exigent circumstances.

A judicial authorization specifying the place, items, and persons to be searched or seized. Police must act within its scope, and evidence obtained beyond that scope may be challenged as unlawful.

Arrest without a prior warrant where there are sufficient grounds for arrest and urgent need, followed by a prompt request for judicial approval. Failure to obtain approval requires immediate release.

Taking a suspect into custody to secure their presence, typically limited to a short period before a prosecutor decides whether to seek detention. Arrest requires statutory grounds and prompt notification of the charges.

Continued custody of a suspect or defendant authorized by a judge after arrest, based on risk of flight or destruction of evidence. It is subject to periodic review and limits on duration.

A procedure in which a judge explains the reasons for detention to the detained person and their counsel, who may state objections. It provides a judicial check on the legality and necessity of continued custody.

The right of a suspect or defendant to retain a lawyer, and for indigent defendants to have counsel appointed. Police must inform suspects of this right before interrogation and allow confidential consultation.

The privilege against being compelled to testify against oneself, which includes the right to refuse to answer questions during interrogation. Silence cannot be treated as an admission of guilt.

The requirement that a confession be given freely, without coercion, promise of benefit, or prolonged improper interrogation. Involuntary confessions are inadmissible, and corroborating evidence is required for conviction.

The doctrine that evidence obtained through serious violations of legal procedures may be excluded from trial to deter unlawful police conduct. Courts weigh the seriousness of the violation against the need for truth-finding.

The principle that only public prosecutors may initiate criminal prosecution, preventing private citizens from bringing criminal charges. It is paired with prosecutorial discretion and review mechanisms.

The power of prosecutors to suspend prosecution when the public interest does not require it, considering the offense's seriousness, the suspect's circumstances, and prospects for rehabilitation. Suspended cases may be reopened.

A civilian body that reviews a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute and may recommend or resolve that prosecution proceed. Its resolutions can bind prosecutors and reflect lay participation in criminal justice.

A system in which randomly selected citizens sit with professional judges to decide guilt and sentence in serious criminal trials. Lay judges deliberate jointly with judges, and their participation enhances public understanding of justice.

The principle that the Constitution is the highest law, and any statute or official act contrary to it is invalid. It grounds judicial review and binds all branches of government.

The power of courts to examine whether laws and official acts conform to the Constitution and to refuse to apply unconstitutional provisions. In Japan, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of such questions.

Rights inherent in every person, protected by the Constitution from state interference and secured through law. They include equality, liberty, and social rights, and may be limited only within constitutional bounds.

The constitutional guarantee that all people are equal under the law and that discrimination based on race, sex, social status, or other grounds is prohibited. Reasonable distinctions are allowed when they serve a legitimate purpose proportionally.

The right to express opinions and information without state interference, including press and assembly freedoms. Restrictions must survive strict scrutiny and be narrowly tailored to a compelling public interest.

The constitutional basis for limiting human rights when necessary to protect the rights and interests of others or the community. Courts require that restrictions be proportional and not destroy the right's essential content.

The constitutional guarantee that life, liberty, and property may be taken only through fair legal procedures, including notice, hearing, and impartial decision-making. It applies to criminal and administrative proceedings alike.

The latitude given to administrative agencies to choose among lawful courses of action, such as whether to grant a permit. Courts review whether discretion was exercised within statutory limits and without abuse.

A ground for invalidating an administrative act where the agency went beyond the scope of its discretion or used it for improper purposes, acting arbitrarily or on facts it did not reasonably assess. Courts may then cancel the act.

A decision by an administrative agency that directly affects the rights or obligations of a specific person, such as a license grant or a fine. It is subject to notice, reasons, and appeal procedures.

The statutory rules governing how agencies make decisions, including notice, opportunities for the affected party to be heard, and reasoned decisions. Fair procedure supports transparency and accountability in administration.

A procedure for asking a higher administrative body to review an agency's decision, typically on grounds of illegality or abuse of discretion. It offers a faster alternative to litigation but must usually precede or accompany it.

A court or reviewing body's decision to invalidate an administrative act because it was unlawful or based on an abuse of discretion. The act loses effect, and the affected party may seek restoration of rights or compensation.

The requirement that administrative measures restricting rights be suitable for their purpose, necessary among less restrictive alternatives, and not excessive in relation to the harm caused. It limits police powers and other state action.

A principle limiting police measures to the minimum necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose, requiring that the harm caused not outweigh the benefit. It governs the use of force, weapons, and intrusive investigative steps.

A police power to halt a person and ask questions when there are reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity, based on suspicious circumstances. It does not authorize detention or search, and the person may leave if no further legal basis exists.

A limited check of items a person carries, permitted during a lawful stop within the scope of the questioning. It must respect dignity and cannot become a full search without a warrant or valid exception.

A request that a person come to a police station voluntarily for questioning, which the person may refuse. If circumstances effectively compel compliance, it becomes a de facto arrest requiring legal grounds.

The lawful use of a firearm or other weapon by police, permitted only when necessary to protect life or prevent serious harm and within the limits of proportionality. It must be reported and is subject to review.

The professional standards of conduct expected of police officers, including integrity, impartiality, confidentiality, and respect for human rights. Violations damage public trust and can lead to discipline or criminal liability.

The legal and ethical duties an officer owes while performing official functions, such as obeying lawful orders, protecting evidence, and serving the public fairly. Breach may constitute misconduct or a criminal offense.

Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information obtained through police work, such as investigation details or personal data. It violates the duty of confidentiality and may amount to a criminal offense or grounds for discipline.

The ability of a reasonable person to anticipate that a result may occur from their conduct. It is central to proving negligence and to assessing whether a duty of care existed in a given situation.