2019-12-09: Dear Sir,
“Chinese and I” in June 2010 and “Philippine embassy officials and diplomats” in 2014 “provided” “false employment contracts” to “applicants for residence status”. For that reason, we were punished under “Articles 60 and 62” but are clearly “False charges”. This is proved by the revised Immigration Control Law, which was constructed in January 2017. Japanese prosecutors still do not admit their sins. The Chinese and Philippine governments should ask the Japanese government for `` recovery of honor '' and compensation!
Part 1. The case of the Philippine Embassy is exactly the same as the “our case” in 2010.
Chinese and Filipinos gained their status of residence
by “submitting” “false employment contract documents”.
And they got a status of residence.
And they did work other than the status of residence.
They were punished “punishment of labor” under Article 70 of the Immigration Act.
“Diplomats etc.” who “provided” “false documents” became “work punishment”
under “Articles 60 and 62 of the Penal Code”.
If you submit a “false document” and obtain a “visa status”,
it is a violation of the Immigration Act Article 22-4-4.
In this case, the Minister of Justice will cancel the “Resident Status,
visa status” as an administrative measure. And they are forced out.
Therefore, it is not possible to punish "I and Chinese Kingungaku"
or "Philippine embassy officials or diplomats" who provided "false documents"
under "Articles 60 and 62 of the Penal Code".
The “Bill of indictment” of “I and Chinese Kingungaku” is the following “contents”.
1) The fact that the Chinese performed “work outside the status of residence”
under Article 70 of the Immigration Control Act.
2) The fact that “I” created an “employment contract with false content”.
3) The fact that “KinGungaku” “provided” it to the Chinese.
4) The fact that the Chinese applied for “change of status of residence”
with “attachment” of “false employment contract”.
Note 1) In the above configuration, the four Chinese are listed in order.
Although it is not listed in the “Indictment, bill of indictment”,
the Chinese have obtained “Resident status”.
They then violated Article 70 of the Immigration Control Act listed at the beginning
of the bill of indictment.
Note 2) I actually issued an “Employment Contract” to hire Chinese people.
In 2008, the “Lehman Shock” occurred.
So “Company L”, which is preparing to go public, has stopped hiring Chinese people.
However, I don't dispute whether this "Employment Contract" is "true" or "false".
This is because it is not a criminal offense even if it is a “false employment contract”.
The grounds are Article 31 of the Japanese Constitution and Article 22-4-4
of the Immigration Control Act.
It will continue tomorrow.
Please see "Bill of indictment" at the following "Site".
In this case, just by looking at this “bill of indictment”,
you can understand the “error of applicable law”.
Please see “English translation” and “Japanese text” PDFs.
Please be careful when handling personal information.
● Translation of English sentence “letter of indictment”
"Indictment against Yasuhiro Nagano KinGungaku"
English translation is for reference only. To be precise, do it yourself.
● Original Japanese text “letter of indictment”
"Indictment against Yasuhiro Nagano KinGungaku (Japanese)"
English translation is incorrect. Please see “PDF” above for English translation.
● Please see related laws. (Japanese and English translation)
1) Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act
Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act
2) Criminal law
3) Constitution of Japan
The Constitution of Japan
Part 2. I “sue” two things.
`` Revised November 4, 2019 ''
I'm not only Chinese and Philippine,
Fighting for many victims in the world.
It has been nearly 10 years since the incident. My life is limited.
If the world ignores “governance under the law”, it is natural to resolve it by terrorism.
1. Foreigners performed “illegal labor” other than “qualification of residence”.
But foreigners are innocent.
Only foreigners were punished for the immigration law article 70 “Illegal Labor Crimes”.
On the other hand, the Immigration Control Law punishes employers who are “causal”
of illegal labor under Article 73-2 of the Immigration Control Law
(crimes that promote illegal employment).
However, the Japanese judiciary “punished” foreigners only, but not “employers”.
This is clearly contrary to Article 14 “Principles of Equality under the Law”
of the Japanese Constitution.
It violates international law that prohibits "consciously" "punishing" only foreigners.
If an employer who hires a foreigner illegally is "innocent",
an illegally employed foreigner is also "innocent". .
2. The prosecution applied “applying” the crimes supporting other crimes
in Article 60 and 62 of the Penal Code against Article 70 of the Immigration Act
on the grounds of “support of the Immigration Law Article 22-4-4”. Is an error in the law.
"Article 22-4-4 of Immigration Law" is the disposal of those
who have obtained the status of residence through fake application.
Previously, the Immigration Control Act was not subject to penalties
for those who obtained status of residence through false applications (Article 70, Article 74-6).
The revised Immigration Control Law was enacted at the 192nd Diet session
for those who obtained status of residence through falsification applications,
office workers who helped them, lawyers, administrative scriveners, and school staff.
“Effective from January 1, 2017”.
"I, KinGungaku, Philippine diplomat and Philippine embassy employee" is 100% "innocent".
“Reference”: Foreigners acted in accordance with Article 22-4-4
(Acquisition of status of residence by submitting false documents).
However, there is no “criminal punishment” for this.
Disposal is “cancellation of status of residence” and “forced relocation”
by the Minister of Justice.
Therefore, the “crime to support other crimes” in Articles 60 and 62
of the Penal Code is not applicable.
The “reason for crime” in Article 22-4-4 of the Immigration Act pointed out
by the “indictment” has no causal relationship with Article 70 of the Immigration Act.
The prosecutor is "crush something in one's hand".
However, “crush something in one's hand” by the state power is “stop” of “aging,
statistics of limitations”.
The materials are below.
There are many victims in the world.
Best regards. Yasuhiro Nagano
PS: The White House replied to me that I was seriously considering a solution
that would satisfy me with this issue.
I am waiting for the result I hope that there is no lie.
Please e-mail if the URL of the document web is as shown below. (Return a private URL).
Please contact us if you have any questions.