I85PREP
⌘ K
NG Bar Part I Criminal Law study materials
NG Bar Part I Criminal Law study resources

NG Bar Part I Criminal Law practice questions

One question at a time. Build your NG Bar Part I Criminal Law understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Criminal Law

Under the Criminal Code of Japan, which theory of punishment justifies the death penalty and imprisonment by reference to the offender's future dangerousness and the deterrent effect on society?

  1. Restorative justice theory (修復的正義論)
  2. General prevention and special prevention theory (一般予防・特別予防論) Correct answer.
  3. Absolute justice theory (絶対的正義論)
  4. Retributive theory (応報刑論)

Explanation

Preventive theory justifies punishment by its forward-looking effects: deterring the public (general prevention) and reforming or incapacitating the offender (special prevention). Retributive theory instead looks backward to the offender's culpability and the harm done. Restorative justice focuses on repairing the relationship between offender and victim, not on deterrence.

Question 2Criminal Law

Article 9 of the Criminal Code of Japan provides that the death penalty, imprisonment, and fines are the types of punishment. Which additional principal punishment is listed there alongside them?

  1. Suspension of execution of sentence (執行猶予)
  2. Detention (拘留) and minor fine (科料) Correct answer.
  3. Confiscation (没収)
  4. Probation with supervision (保護観察)

Explanation

Article 9 lists the death penalty, imprisonment, imprisonment without work, fine, detention, and minor fine as the principal punishments. Detention and minor fine are therefore principal punishments in their own right. Suspension of execution, probation, and confiscation are not principal punishments listed in Article 9.

Question 3Criminal Law

A man intentionally kills a person at noon on a public street. At the time of the act he is 15 years old. Under the Criminal Code of Japan, how is his act treated?

  1. He is fully punishable because the age of criminal majority is 14.
  2. He is punishable only if the family court waives jurisdiction and sends him to the public prosecutor. Correct answer.
  3. He is not punishable at all and the matter is closed.
  4. He is in principle punishable, but the death penalty and imprisonment for life are replaced by indeterminate imprisonment, and the case is handled through the juvenile procedure.

Explanation

A 15-year-old is above the Penal Code's minimum age of criminal responsibility, but criminal prosecution requires referral by the family court to the public prosecutor under the juvenile procedure. Juvenile Act Article 51 replaces an under-18 offender's death sentence with life imprisonment, not automatically with indeterminate imprisonment.

Question 4Criminal Law

Which statement accurately describes the requirement of 'intent' (故意) for intentional crimes under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. The offender must have a motive for the act that the law regards as worthy of protection.
  2. The offender must know that the act is prohibited by law.
  3. The offender must recognize the specific article of the Criminal Code that criminalizes the conduct.
  4. The offender must recognize and accept the objective elements of the offense, such as the act, the result, and the causal relationship. Correct answer.

Explanation

Intent requires that the offender recognize the factual elements constituting the offense and carry out the act in light of that recognition. Knowledge that the conduct is legally prohibited is generally not required, because ignorance of law does not excuse. A specific legal provision or a protected motive is likewise not an element of intent.

Question 5Criminal Law

A hunter who genuinely and reasonably believes that the moving figure in the bushes is a wild boar shoots and kills a person. Which treatment best fits the Criminal Code and prevailing doctrine?

  1. Intentional homicide is negated, but liability for negligent homicide may remain if the hunter failed to exercise due care. Correct answer.
  2. No offense, because the mistake was reasonable and negates both intent and negligence.
  3. Intentional homicide, because the result of death occurred.
  4. Negligent homicide, because the mistake was the hunter's own fault.

Explanation

A mistake about the object of the act (客体の錯誤) negates intent as to the person, so intentional homicide is excluded. The actor may still be liable for negligent homicide if the mistake itself resulted from a failure to exercise the care required in the circumstances. Where the mistake is reasonable and no care was lacking, negligence is also excluded, but the option correctly frames the residual inquiry.

Question 6Criminal Law

A man grabs a woman's handbag and runs away. He used no weapon, no force, and the victim did not resist. Which offense under the Criminal Code of Japan most appropriately applies?

  1. Theft (窃盗) Correct answer.
  2. Extortion (恐喝)
  3. Robbery (強盗)
  4. Fraud (詐欺)

Explanation

Theft under Article 235 requires the unlawful taking of another's property with intent to appropriate it, and the elements are satisfied when the bag is simply snatched without force. Robbery requires violence or intimidation against a person as a means of taking property. Extortion requires intimidation inducing the victim to deliver property, and fraud requires deception.

Question 7Criminal Law

A person breaks into a house at night intending to steal. Before finding any property, he is arrested. Under the Criminal Code of Japan, how is the theft treated?

  1. Completed burglary only, with theft merged into it.
  2. No offense, because nothing was taken.
  3. Attempted theft, punishable under Article 243. Correct answer.
  4. Completed theft, because the intrusion itself constitutes taking.

Explanation

Theft is complete when the offender takes possession of the property, so merely entering with intent to steal does not complete the offense. Article 243 punishes attempts at theft, so the conduct is punishable as attempted theft. The intrusion may separately constitute burglary (住居侵入), but that does not convert the theft into a completed offense.

Question 8Criminal Law

A man stabs a victim intending to kill him, but the victim survives. Which statement correctly describes criminal attempt (未遂) under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. An attempt requires that the offender voluntarily abandons the crime.
  2. An attempt is punishable only where the statute expressly provides for punishment of the attempt. Correct answer.
  3. An attempt requires that the offender complete the act, regardless of whether the result occurs.
  4. An attempt requires the commencement of the execution of the crime and the failure to complete it for reasons outside the offender's control.

Explanation

Article 44 makes punishment for an attempt dependent on a specific statutory provision. Article 43 addresses an offender who has begun executing an offense without completing it, including cases of voluntary abandonment. Accordingly, failure caused by circumstances outside the offender's control is not a universal requirement.

Question 9Criminal Law

Two men agree to rob a bank and jointly carry out the robbery. Which principle governs their criminal liability under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. Only the person who physically took the money is liable.
  2. Each is liable as a co-principal for the whole crime committed within the common plan, under Article 60. Correct answer.
  3. Each is liable only for the acts he personally performed, plus preparation.
  4. Each is liable only for his own individual acts.

Explanation

Article 60 provides that two or more persons who jointly commit a crime are each punished as principals. Under the common plan doctrine, each participant is liable for the entire crime and for acts within the scope of the shared intent. Liability is therefore not limited to the physical acts each performed.

Question 10Criminal Law

A man urges his friend to kill a third person, and the friend commits the killing. The instigator did not participate in the act itself. How is the instigator treated under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. As a person who committed no offense because he did not perform the act.
  2. As an instigator (教唆犯) punished as a principal for the crime he instigated. Correct answer.
  3. As a co-principal in every case.
  4. As an accessory after the fact.

Explanation

Article 61 provides that a person who instigates another to commit a crime is punished as a principal. Instigation requires that the instigator cause the other person to decide to commit the crime, and the instigated person must actually carry it out. The instigator therefore incurs the penalty of the principal offense even without performing the act himself.

Question 11Criminal Law

Which circumstance constitutes a lawful act in self-defense (正当防衛) under Article 36 of the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. Using force against a lawful arrest by a police officer.
  2. Using excessive force against a minor threat, well beyond what was necessary.
  3. Using force in retaliation after the attacker has fled the scene.
  4. Using force to repel an unjust infringement that is imminent and unlawful, within the limits necessary to defend oneself. Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 36 requires an imminent and unlawful infringement against oneself or another and force used within the limits necessary to repel it. Retaliation after the attack has ended lacks imminence, and resistance to a lawful arrest lacks unlawfulness. Excessive force falls outside lawful self-defense and may be treated as excessive defense.

Question 12Criminal Law

A person who is being chased by an attacker uses force that exceeds the limits of necessity and proportionality, but only because he was frightened and confused. How is this treated under Article 36(2) of the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. As excessive defense (過剰防衛), which may reduce or exempt punishment at the court's discretion. Correct answer.
  2. As intentional injury with no possibility of mitigation.
  3. As necessity (緊急避難) under Article 37.
  4. As lawful self-defense with no punishment.

Explanation

Article 36(2) addresses excessive defense: where the force exceeds the limits of necessity, punishment may be reduced or exempted according to the circumstances. Fear, confusion, or panic at the scene is a typical circumstance supporting mitigation. Excessive defense is not fully lawful, and it is distinct from necessity under Article 37.

Question 13Criminal Law

Which statement correctly describes necessity (緊急避難) under Article 37 of the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. It applies only where the danger originates from a human act.
  2. It requires that the harm caused be no greater than the harm avoided, and it is not available to a person who bears a special duty to confront the danger. Correct answer.
  3. It requires that the actor be the source of the danger.
  4. It permits any harm to be inflicted as long as the actor believed it was necessary.

Explanation

Article 37 requires a present danger to the life, body, freedom, or property of oneself or another, and the harm caused must not exceed the harm that was to be avoided. A person with a special duty to confront the danger, such as a police officer or firefighter, cannot rely on necessity to avoid it. Necessity can arise from natural events as well as human conduct.

Question 14Criminal Law

A man is apprehended for shoplifting and is taken to a store office. While being questioned, he punches the guard and escapes. Which doctrine determines whether the use of force constitutes robbery or a separate offense?

  1. The doctrine of voluntary abandonment.
  2. The doctrine of transferred intent.
  3. The doctrine of the continuation of the scene and the opportunity to recover the property (機会の継続). Correct answer.
  4. The doctrine of impossibility of attempt.

Explanation

When force or intimidation is used after taking property, whether robbery (事後強盗) is established depends on whether the scene and the opportunity to recover the property still continue. If the force is used while the taking is still effectively in progress, robbery may be found; if the situation has clearly ended, a separate offense such as assault applies. The other doctrines concern different problems.

Question 15Criminal Law

A person takes another's property believing in good faith that the property belongs to him. How is this treated under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. Attempted theft, because the taking was incomplete.
  2. No theft, because the intent to appropriate another's property is lacking. Correct answer.
  3. Embezzlement, because he treated the property as his own.
  4. Theft, because the property belonged to another.

Explanation

Theft requires intent to appropriate another person's property unlawfully, which presupposes awareness that the property belongs to another. A good-faith belief in ownership negates that intent, so theft is not established. The situation is a mistake of fact about ownership, and neither attempt nor embezzlement fits.

Question 16Criminal Law

Which statement correctly describes the offense of fraud (詐欺) under Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. It requires the offender to use violence against the victim.
  2. It requires the offender to be in lawful possession of the property first.
  3. It requires deception of a person causing that person to deliver property, with the offender obtaining property or a profit. Correct answer.
  4. It requires the offender to take property secretly.

Explanation

Fraud requires deceiving a person, causing that person to make a disposition of property based on the deception, and the offender obtaining property or a pecuniary profit. Violence is the hallmark of robbery, secret taking is the hallmark of theft, and prior lawful possession points to embezzlement. The causal chain of deception, mistake, disposition, and gain is essential.

Question 17Criminal Law

A person who has lawful possession of another's money as a custodian spends it for his own purposes. Which offense under the Criminal Code of Japan applies?

  1. Embezzlement (横領) Correct answer.
  2. Theft
  3. Fraud
  4. Robbery

Explanation

Embezzlement under Article 252 applies where a person in possession of another's property, entrusted to him or otherwise lawfully held, misappropriates it for his own purposes. Because the possession is lawful at the outset, theft is excluded. Robbery and fraud require violence or deception, which are absent.

Question 18Criminal Law

Which statement correctly describes the offense of extortion (恐喝) under Article 249 of the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. It requires deception of the victim.
  2. It requires intimidation that causes the victim to deliver property, and the victim's fear need not reach the level required for robbery. Correct answer.
  3. It requires the use of violence sufficient to suppress resistance.
  4. It requires the offender to take property secretly.

Explanation

Extortion consists of intimidating a person, causing that person to deliver property out of fear, and thereby obtaining property or a profit. The intimidation need not reach the degree that suppresses resistance, which distinguishes extortion from robbery. Deception characterizes fraud, and secret taking characterizes theft.

Question 19Criminal Law

A public official accepts money from a citizen in connection with the exercise of his official duties. Which offense under the Criminal Code of Japan is most directly applicable?

  1. Embezzlement under Article 252.
  2. Bribery (賄賂) under Article 197. Correct answer.
  3. Fraud under Article 246.
  4. Extortion under Article 249.

Explanation

Article 197 punishes a public official who accepts, solicits, or promises to accept a bribe in connection with his official duties. The offense protects the fairness and trust of public administration. Extortion, fraud, and embezzlement address property crimes and do not capture the official-duty element.

Question 20Criminal Law

A person destroys another's property by setting fire to a building that is not used as a dwelling and is not occupied. Which offense under the Criminal Code of Japan applies?

  1. Criminal destruction of property (器物損壊) under Article 261.
  2. Arson of a dwelling (現住建造物等放火) under Article 108.
  3. Arson of a structure under Article 110.
  4. Arson of a non-dwelling building (非現住建造物等放火) under Article 109. Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 109 covers burning a building, vessel, or train that is neither a dwelling nor currently occupied, and it requires that the property belong to another or otherwise meet the statutory conditions. Article 108 applies only to dwellings and occupied buildings. Article 110 addresses objects not covered by Articles 108 and 109.

Question 21Criminal Law

A person who has been ordered to leave a premises refuses to do so and remains there without justification. Which offense under the Criminal Code of Japan applies?

  1. Theft under Article 235.
  2. Robbery under Article 236.
  3. Unlawful entry (住居侵入) under Article 130. Correct answer.
  4. Trespass after being ordered to leave is not punishable.

Explanation

Article 130 punishes entering another's dwelling, building, or premises without justification, and it also covers remaining there after being ordered to leave. Refusing to leave after a lawful demand satisfies the offense even if the initial entry was lawful. Theft and robbery require taking property, which is not described.

Question 22Criminal Law

Which statement correctly describes the offense of obstruction of official duties (公務執行妨害) under Article 95 of the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. It applies only to obstruction of judicial proceedings.
  2. It applies where the actor uses assault or intimidation against a public official in the exercise of official duties, and the duty need only be lawful in form. Correct answer.
  3. It applies only where the official is physically injured.
  4. It applies only where the official duty is later found to be unlawful.

Explanation

Article 95 punishes assault or intimidation against a public official performing official duties, or against a person assisting him, for the purpose of obstructing the duty. The duty must be lawful, but the requirement is satisfied if the duty is lawful in form and within the official's general competence. Physical injury is not required, and the offense is not limited to judicial proceedings.

Question 23Criminal Law

A person forges a private document and uses it to obtain a loan. Which offenses under the Criminal Code of Japan are implicated?

  1. No offense, because private documents are not protected.
  2. Only theft, because money was obtained.
  3. Only fraud, because the document was used to obtain money.
  4. Forgery of a private document (私文書偽造) and use of a forged document (偽造文書行使). Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 159 punishes forging a private document, and Article 161 punishes using a forged document. Where the forged document is used to obtain a loan, fraud under Article 246 may also be established, but the forgery and use offenses are distinct and are implicated. Private documents are protected because of their evidentiary function.

Question 24Criminal Law

An offender is sentenced for a crime committed in Japan. Which statement correctly describes the territorial principle under Article 1 of the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. The Code applies only to Japanese nationals.
  2. The Code applies only to crimes committed outside Japan.
  3. The Code applies only where the victim is Japanese.
  4. The Code applies to crimes committed within Japan, regardless of the nationality of the offender. Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 1 adopts the territorial principle: the Criminal Code applies to crimes committed within Japan, without regard to the nationality of the offender. Nationality and victim status are irrelevant to territorial application, though other principles may extend the Code's reach to certain offenses abroad.

Question 25Criminal Law

A Japanese national commits murder abroad. Which basis allows Japan to prosecute under the Criminal Code?

  1. The active nationality principle under Article 3. Correct answer.
  2. The protective principle alone.
  3. The passive nationality principle under Article 3.
  4. The territorial principle.

Explanation

Article 3 extends the Criminal Code to certain serious offenses, including homicide, committed by Japanese nationals outside Japan, reflecting the active nationality principle. The territorial principle does not reach conduct abroad, and the protective and passive nationality principles concern different interests.

Question 26Criminal Law

Under the Criminal Code of Japan, which element distinguishes robbery (強盗) from theft (窃盗)?

  1. The use or threat of force against a person that suppresses resistance Correct answer.
  2. The taking of property from a building rather than an open space
  3. The taking of property worth more than a fixed statutory amount
  4. The taking of property by a person entrusted with its custody

Explanation

Robbery under Article 236 requires that the offender, by assault or intimidation, deprives another of property. The decisive element is force or threat sufficient to suppress the victim's resistance, which elevates unlawful taking from theft to robbery. The value of the property and the place of taking are irrelevant to this distinction.

Question 27Criminal Law

A court convicts an offender of theft and imposes a fine. Which statement correctly describes the significance of the conviction under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. The conviction converts the offense into a status offense for future sentencing
  2. The conviction bars any later prosecution for offenses committed on the same day
  3. The conviction automatically extinguishes the offender's civil obligation to compensate the victim
  4. The conviction establishes criminal liability and authorizes punishment within the statutory range Correct answer.

Explanation

A conviction establishes that the elements of the offense were proven and permits the court to impose the punishment provided by the applicable article. Civil compensation is governed separately, and a criminal judgment does not by itself discharge the tort obligation. Each offense is prosecuted on its own elements.

Question 28Criminal Law

A man intentionally kills another person. Under the Criminal Code of Japan, which offense has he committed?

  1. Abandonment causing death (保護責任者遺棄致死)
  2. Injury causing death (傷害致死)
  3. Negligent homicide (過失致死)
  4. Murder (殺人) Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 199 punishes the intentional killing of another person as murder. Injury causing death under Article 205 requires an intent to injure but no intent to kill, and negligent homicide requires no intent at all. The presence of a deliberate intent to take life is what characterizes murder.

Question 29Criminal Law

A woman is prosecuted for theft of a bicycle. Which statement correctly describes the required mental element (故意) for theft under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. The offender must know the property belongs to another and intend to take it unlawfully Correct answer.
  2. The offender must intend to cause the owner permanent financial ruin
  3. The offender must act with a specific motive of personal gain
  4. The offender must know the exact market value of the property at the time of taking

Explanation

Theft under Article 235 requires an intent to take property that the offender knows belongs to another, together with the intent to appropriate it. The offender need not know the precise value or intend the owner's ruin. A general intent to use the property as one's own suffices.

Question 30Criminal Law

Which statement correctly describes the age of criminal responsibility under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. A person under 14 years of age is not punishable as an offender Correct answer.
  2. A person under 20 years of age is treated as fully responsible
  3. A person under 16 years of age may be punished only by fine
  4. A person under 18 years of age is never punishable as an offender

Explanation

Article 41 provides that an act performed by a person under 14 years of age is not punishable. Such juveniles are instead handled through protective measures under juvenile law. The age of majority for other purposes does not alter this criminal threshold.

Question 31Criminal Law

A defendant acted while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. Under Article 39 of the Criminal Code of Japan, how is he treated?

  1. He is automatically acquitted only if a psychiatrist testifies at trial
  2. He is punishable but the court must impose the maximum statutory penalty
  3. He is punishable exactly as a person without any mental disorder
  4. He is not punishable because he lacked the capacity to appreciate or conform his conduct Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 39 provides that an act performed by a person of unsound mind is not punishable, and punishment is reduced for a person of diminished capacity. The test concerns the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform conduct to that appreciation. Expert testimony is evidence, not a statutory condition.

Question 32Criminal Law

A person is prosecuted for the crime of arson of a dwelling (現住建造物等放火). Which statement correctly identifies the object protected by this offense?

  1. A building that is actually used as a dwelling or where persons are present Correct answer.
  2. Any building regardless of whether anyone uses or occupies it
  3. Only buildings insured against fire
  4. Only buildings owned by the offender's family

Explanation

Article 108 protects buildings used as dwellings or where persons are actually present at the time of the fire. Buildings that are neither dwellings nor occupied fall under Article 109, which carries a lower penalty. Ownership and insurance status are not elements.

Question 33Criminal Law

A public official who, in the exercise of his duties, accepts a bribe from a business owner is prosecuted. Which offense under the Criminal Code of Japan has he committed?

  1. Obstruction of official duties (公務執行妨害)
  2. Acceptance of a bribe (収賄) Correct answer.
  3. Breach of trust in the course of business (背任)
  4. Embezzlement in the course of business (業務上横領)

Explanation

Article 197 punishes a public official who accepts, solicits, or promises to accept a bribe in connection with official duties. The offense protects the fairness and trustworthiness of public administration. The other offenses concern private property interests or interference with the performance of duties.

Question 34Criminal Law

A man threatens to reveal embarrassing information about a shopkeeper unless the shopkeeper hands over cash. The shopkeeper, frightened, pays. Which offense under the Criminal Code of Japan has the man committed?

  1. Fraud (詐欺)
  2. Theft (窃盗)
  3. Robbery (強盗)
  4. Extortion (恐喝) Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 249 punishes extortion, which consists of intimidating another person and thereby obtaining property or a benefit. The victim's fear, not deception, is the means by which the property is obtained. Robbery requires force or threat sufficient to suppress resistance and is distinguished from extortion by the degree of coercion.

Question 35Criminal Law

An employee with authority to collect payments on behalf of his employer receives a customer's payment and keeps the money for himself. Under the Criminal Code of Japan, which offense is most appropriate?

  1. Theft (窃盗)
  2. Extortion (恐喝)
  3. Fraud (詐欺)
  4. Embezzlement in the course of business (業務上横領) Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 253 punishes embezzlement in the course of business where a person entrusted with another's property, in the course of business, appropriates it. The employee lawfully possessed the money when he received it, so the subsequent appropriation is embezzlement rather than theft. The business character increases the penalty.

Question 36Criminal Law

A person presents a forged receipt to a lender and, on the strength of the false document, receives a loan he never intends to repay. Which offenses under the Criminal Code of Japan are implicated?

  1. Extortion and intimidation
  2. Theft and unlawful entry
  3. Embezzlement and breach of trust
  4. Fraud and forgery/use of a private document Correct answer.

Explanation

Obtaining a loan by presenting a forged document and deceiving the lender constitutes fraud under Article 246. The creation and use of the forged private document separately constitute forgery and use of a forged private document under Articles 159 and 161. The two sets of offenses may be joined in prosecution.

Question 37Criminal Law

A man who is being punched repeatedly by an attacker grabs a nearby bottle and strikes the attacker, causing injury, when no lesser means was available. Under Article 36 of the Criminal Code of Japan, how should this be evaluated?

  1. It is punishable injury because self-defense never permits causing injury
  2. It is excessive self-defense because any use of a weapon exceeds the limits of necessity
  3. It is a lawful act of self-defense because the force was necessary to repel an imminent unlawful attack Correct answer.
  4. It is necessity under Article 37 because the harm was avoided

Explanation

Article 36 permits force necessary to defend against an imminent unlawful attack on oneself or another. Where no lesser means was available and the force was proportionate to the attack, the act is lawful. The use of a nearby object does not by itself make the response excessive.

Question 38Criminal Law

A defendant exceeded the limits of self-defense but acted in extreme fear and confusion. Under Article 36(2) of the Criminal Code of Japan, how is punishment affected?

  1. The defendant must be acquitted without any qualification
  2. Punishment must be increased because the force exceeded the limits
  3. The defendant must be sentenced to the maximum statutory penalty
  4. Punishment may be reduced or remitted at the court's discretion Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 36(2) provides that where the actor exceeded the limits of necessity out of fear, excitement, or confusion, punishment may be reduced or remitted. The court retains discretion rather than being compelled to acquit or to impose a fixed penalty. This mitigates the harshness of convicting an actor who was overwhelmed by the situation.

Question 39Criminal Law

A hiker facing a sudden landslide breaks into an empty mountain hut to escape imminent danger to his life. Under Article 37 of the Criminal Code of Japan, which statement is correct?

  1. The act may be lawful necessity if the harm avoided outweighs the harm caused and no other means was available Correct answer.
  2. The act is punishable because necessity applies only to persons with a duty to act
  3. The act is always unlawful because it damages another's property
  4. The act is self-defense because the landslide is an unlawful attack

Explanation

Article 37 excuses an act that unavoidably causes harm to another's interest in order to avert imminent danger to life, body, or other interests, where the harm caused does not exceed the harm avoided. A natural disaster can ground necessity even though it is not an unlawful human attack. The comparison of harms and the absence of alternatives are central.

Question 40Criminal Law

A man is apprehended for shoplifting and, while being questioned in the store office, punches a guard and escapes. Which statement correctly describes his liability?

  1. He may be liable for robbery if the force was used to retain the stolen property and suppress resistance Correct answer.
  2. He may be liable only for obstruction of official duties
  3. He may be liable for fraud because he deceived the guard
  4. He may be liable only for theft because the taking was already complete

Explanation

Under Japanese doctrine, force or intimidation used after the taking, in order to retain the property or escape, can convert the offense into robbery (the so-called robbery of opportunity). The key question is whether the force was used in connection with the retention of the stolen property. If it was, robbery rather than mere theft is charged.

Question 41Criminal Law

A person takes another's umbrella from a rack, genuinely believing it is his own because it looks identical. Under the Criminal Code of Japan, how is this treated?

  1. Embezzlement is committed because the umbrella was in his possession
  2. No theft is committed because the intent to appropriate another's property is absent Correct answer.
  3. Attempted theft is committed because the taking was completed
  4. Theft is committed because the umbrella belonged to another in fact

Explanation

Theft requires an intent to appropriate property that the actor knows belongs to another. A bona fide mistake about ownership negates that intent, so no theft is committed. The objective fact of ownership does not substitute for the required mental element.

Question 42Criminal Law

A man intending to kill his victim beats him and leaves him unconscious. Before the victim dies, a third party independently stabs and kills him. Which statement correctly describes the first man's liability under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. He is liable for attempted murder because his conduct did not cause the death Correct answer.
  2. He bears no liability because another person caused the death
  3. He is liable for injury causing death because the death followed his assault
  4. He is liable for murder because his intent suffices regardless of causation

Explanation

Attempt is punishable where the actor has begun to carry out the crime but it does not consummate. Where an independent intervening act causes the death, the causal link to the first actor's conduct is broken, so he is liable for attempted murder rather than completed murder. The intent to kill supports the attempt charge.

Question 43Criminal Law

Two men agree to commit a theft and one of them, without the other's knowledge, carries a knife and uses it to threaten a victim during the taking. Which statement best describes the liability of the man who did not know about the knife?

  1. He is liable for attempted robbery, because the plan was incomplete
  2. He is liable for theft, because the aggravating circumstance was outside his intent and agreement Correct answer.
  3. He is liable for robbery, because the joint enterprise makes all participants liable for every act
  4. He bears no liability, because he did not personally use force

Explanation

Criminal liability requires personal intent as to the elements of the offense. Where a co-participant unilaterally escalates the offense in a way outside the agreement and the other's awareness, the other is not liable for the aggravated offense. He remains liable for the offense he intended, namely theft.

Question 44Criminal Law

A person who has been lawfully ordered to leave a premises refuses to do so and remains there without justification. Which offense under the Criminal Code of Japan applies?

  1. Arson (放火)
  2. Obstruction of official duties (公務執行妨害)
  3. Unlawful entry (住居侵入)
  4. Failure to leave a premises (不退去) Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 130 punishes both unlawful entry into another's premises and refusal to leave after being ordered to do so. The offense of failure to leave requires a lawful demand to depart and a continued stay without justification. It is distinct from unlawful entry, which concerns the initial intrusion.

Question 45Criminal Law

During a police officer's lawful execution of duties, a bystander physically blocks the officer and prevents him from making an arrest. Which offense under Article 95 of the Criminal Code of Japan is implicated?

  1. Obstruction of official duties (公務執行妨害) Correct answer.
  2. Obstruction of business (業務妨害)
  3. Unlawful entry (住居侵入)
  4. Intimidation (脅迫)

Explanation

Article 95 punishes assault or intimidation against a public official in the execution of official duties, or the use of force or threat to obstruct the performance of those duties. Physically blocking an officer from making an arrest falls within this provision. The duties must be lawful and in progress.

Question 46Criminal Law

A man deceives a bank into lending him money by submitting false financial statements, intending never to repay. Which statement correctly describes the offense of fraud under Article 246 of the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. Fraud requires that the property be taken without the victim's knowledge
  2. Fraud requires the use of physical force against the victim
  3. Fraud requires deception that causes the victim to make a property disposition based on a mistake, resulting in loss Correct answer.
  4. Fraud requires that the victim be a public official

Explanation

Article 246 punishes obtaining property by deceiving another and thereby causing a disposition of property based on a mistake. The offense has a structure of deception, mistake, disposition, and loss. The victim must deliver the property, unlike theft where the property is taken from possession.

Question 47Criminal Law

A Japanese national commits murder in a foreign country that also punishes the act. Which basis allows Japan to prosecute under the Criminal Code?

  1. The universal principle, because murder is always subject to universal jurisdiction
  2. The active personality principle, subject to the requirement that the act is punishable under the law of the place of commission Correct answer.
  3. The protective principle, because murder threatens the state
  4. The territorial principle, because the victim was Japanese

Explanation

Article 3 of the Criminal Code extends its application to certain serious offenses committed abroad by Japanese nationals, reflecting the active personality principle. Article 3(2) generally requires that the act be punishable under the law of the place where it was committed. This condition protects against imposing liability where the foreign law permits the conduct.

Question 48Criminal Law

An offender commits a crime in Japan and is later prosecuted. Which statement correctly describes the territorial principle under Article 1 of the Criminal Code?

  1. The Code applies only to offenses committed in Tokyo
  2. The Code applies only to offenses committed by Japanese nationals anywhere
  3. The Code applies to offenses committed anywhere if the victim is Japanese
  4. The Code applies to offenses committed within Japan, including acts on Japanese ships and aircraft outside Japan Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 1 provides that the Criminal Code applies to offenses committed within Japan. Article 1(2) extends this to offenses committed aboard Japanese ships or aircraft outside Japan. The territorial principle is thus the primary basis of application, with nationality and other principles operating as supplements.

Question 49Criminal Law

A man intends to steal a wallet from a bag. He opens the bag but the wallet is not there because the owner removed it earlier. Which statement correctly describes his liability under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. He is liable for unlawful entry because he opened the bag
  2. He is liable for completed theft because he intended to take the property
  3. He bears no liability because the object was absent
  4. He is liable for attempted theft because he began the execution of the offense Correct answer.

Explanation

Attempt requires that the actor have begun to carry out the offense and that the offense not be consummated. Opening the bag in search of the wallet constitutes the commencement of execution. The absence of the object makes the offense impossible to complete but does not negate the punishable attempt.

Question 50Criminal Law

A doctor who has a duty to treat a patient omits necessary treatment, and the patient dies as a result. Which statement correctly describes the basis for the doctor's liability under the Criminal Code of Japan?

  1. Omission can never constitute a criminal act under Japanese law
  2. Omission is punishable only if a third party requested action
  3. Omission can constitute a criminal act where the actor has a legal duty to act and the omission is equivalent to positive conduct Correct answer.
  4. Omission is punishable only if the actor intended the result

Explanation

Japanese criminal law recognizes that an omission can satisfy the conduct element where the actor bears a legal duty to act and the failure is equivalent in culpability to positive conduct. A doctor's duty to treat arises from the treatment relationship and professional obligation. Where the omission causes death, homicide by omission may be established.