On the 16th, the Kyoto District Court handed down a verdict in the trial of Yukio Tanaka (59), a member of the Kudo-kai group, a designated dangerous organized crime group, who was charged with murder and violation of the Firearms and Swords Act for shooting and killing Takayuki Ohigashi (72 at the time), the president of Ohsho Food Service, which operates Gyoza no Ohsho. Presiding Judge Atsushi Nishikawa handed down a verdict of not guilty (no sentence required, life imprisonment).
The indictment alleges that in the early morning hours of December 19, 2013, the defendant shot and killed Daito with a handgun in the parking lot in front of the headquarters of Ohsho Food Service in Yamashina Ward, Kyoto City.
There was no direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony of the crime, that the defendant was responsible for the murder, and at trial there was a dispute as to whether the defendant was the one who killed Daito.
Prosecutors pointed out that two cigarette butts found near the crime scene immediately after the incident showed that the DNA from the saliva on the butts matched that of the defendant. Based on the results of a cigarette extinguishing experiment and the testimony of an employee at the time that ``the cigarette was not there the morning before the incident,'' the defendant claimed that the defendant, who had been waiting for the victim, had smoked it near the crime scene and thrown it away just before the incident.
Another pillar of proof is the relationship between the defendant and the light passenger car that the prosecution believes was used in preparation for the crime. After the incident, a stolen motorcycle and scooter were found approximately 1 to 1.4 kilometers from the scene, and smoke from the gun left behind from the handlebars of the motorcycle was confirmed. The two cars were stolen from Kyoto Prefecture two months before the incident. A light passenger car was captured on a security camera near the scene where the scooter was stolen.
Prosecutors pointed out that the light passenger car belonged to the defendant's childhood friend, based on its exterior features. As a witness, a childhood friend testified that he lent it to the defendant around the same time.
The prosecutor's office stated, ``There is no evidence of any direct acquaintance or personal relationship between the defendant and the victim, and there are people other than the defendant who want to kill the victim.'' He claimed that he committed the crime through the will of these unknown individuals.
Meanwhile, at his first trial in November last year, the defendant denied the charges, saying, ``I am in no way the perpetrator.'' The defendant was not questioned at his will, but at the final trial before sentencing, he said, ``I want to grab each and every person in the audience by the shoulder and tell them that I am not the criminal.''
The defense argued that the cigarette butts did not prove that the defendant had committed the crime. Regarding the two cigarette butts, it was pointed out that the "white ash" that would have been present if they had been smoked at the scene had not been found. He argued that the culprit brought in the cigarette butts to trap the defendant, and that the cigarette butts may have been left there the day before the incident.
Regarding the light passenger car, he also argued that the car seen on the security camera could not be recognized as belonging to his childhood friend. He pointed out that the images taken by the security cameras were grainy and did not capture the characteristics of the car. They argued that the method used to identify light passenger cars was unreasonable, as the investigation had been narrowed down to a limited number of areas.
The prosecutor's office argued that the evidence ``does not allow us to reach without a doubt that the defendant fired the handgun.''
