2025.10.21

2024(A)585

Keishu Vol. 79, No. 7

(Criminal Case) Decision concerning the case in which it was ruled that a warehouse container falls within the scope of "buildings" referred to in Article 130 of the Penal Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 67 of 2022)

Case charged to the court for theft and breaking into a building

Decision of the Third Petty Bench, dismissed

Sapporo High Court, Judgment of April 18, 2024

An iron warehouse container of about 1,240 cm in length, about 240 cm in width, and about 288 cm in height, which was installed on the ground and has since remained there without being moved to any other place and has been used continuously as a warehouse with electricity brought into it from a utility pole via a wire, falls within the scope of "buildings" referred to in Article 130 of the Penal Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 67 of 2022).

Article 130 of the Penal Code (prior to the amendment by Act No. 67 of 2022)

The final appeal is dismissed. Out of the number of days of pre-sentencing detention for this instance, 430 days are included in the calculation of the sentence.

The reasons for final appeal stated by the defense counsel, TAKADA Hideki, are arguments of a mere violation of laws and regulations and inappropriate sentencing, and none of these reasons constitutes any of the reasons for final appeal as referred to in Article 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defense counsel argues that the warehouse container referred to in No. 6 of the judgment in first instance (referred to below as the "Warehouse Container") does not fall within the scope of "buildings" referred to in Article 130 of the Penal Code prior to the amendment by Act No. 67 of 2022 because it is not fixed on the ground. However, according to the findings by the court of prior instance and the case record, the Warehouse Container is an iron container of about 1,240 cm in length, about 240 cm in width, and about 288 cm in height which was installed on the ground, and for more than three years and ten months since it was installed, it has remained there without being moved to any other place and has been used continuously as a warehouse to store tires and other goods with electricity brought into it from a utility pole via a wire. Based on such facts of the case, the Warehouse Container is an object that is not easy to move and is placed on the ground and used continuously, and in light of its form and actual manner of use and according to the socially accepted ideas, it can be said to have been fixed on the ground. Therefore, it should be said that the Warehouse Container falls within the scope of "buildings" referred to in Article 130 of the Penal Code prior to the abovementioned amendment. The circumstances pointed out by the defense counsel, such as that no foundation is established for the Warehouse Container, cannot be found to be the reason to deny that the Warehouse Container falls within the scope of "buildings" as mentioned above. Consequently, the determination by the court of prior instance is justified for upholding the judgment in first instance that found the accused to have committed the crime of breaking into a building. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 414, Article 386, paragraph (1), item (iii), and the proviso to Article 181, paragraph (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 21 of the Penal Code, the Court unanimously decides as set forth in the main text of the decision.

Justice WATANABE Eriko Justice HAYASHI Michiharu Justice ISHIKANE Kimihiro Justice HIRAKI Masahiro Justice OKINO Masami