The former president of the well-known Japanese restaurant chain "King of Gyoza", Takayuki Oto, was shot and killed 13 years ago. The Kyoto District Court today acquitted the gangster Yukio Tanaka, who was accused of being the actual perpetrator.
Japan's Kyodo News and Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) reported that in December 2013, 72-year-old Takayuki Oto Higashi, the president of Wangshou Food Service Co., Ltd. who ran "Dumpling King", was shot and killed with a gun in front of the company's headquarters in Yamashina District, Kyoto City. Tanaka Yukio, a 59-year-old Kudo-kai mafia cadre in Fukuoka Prefecture, was charged with murder and violation of the "Gun Knife Act" (equivalent to Taiwan's "Guns, Ammunition and Knife Control Ordinance").
Due to the lack of direct evidence in this case, the biggest dispute is whether Yukio Tanaka, who is accused of being the actual perpetrator, is the murderer of the president.
The prosecutor summoned more than 30 witnesses, including the police officer responsible for the investigation, and presented a number of circumstantial evidence, arguing that "it is actually impossible for a third party to deliberately commit this case" and seeking a life sentence. The presiding judge of the Kyoto District Court, Atsushi Saikawa, acquitted the defendant today.
Three years after Yukio Tanaka was arrested and charged, his trial began in November last year. Major criminal cases such as homicide are usually tried by the "referee system" in which the public participates in the trial. However, in this case, considering factors such as "possible retaliation from gangs and gangs," the case was changed to be heard separately by professional judges. The court also set up bulletproof partitions in front of the auditorium and adopted high-security measures.
At the first court hearing, Yukio Tanaka said: "I am definitely not a criminal." He advocated innocence. Thereafter, the trial focused on two major issues.
One of the points of contention is the two cigarette butts left at the crime scene. The prosecutor pointed out that the saliva DNA type attached to the cigarette butt was consistent with the defendant, and based on the testimony of the police and other witnesses, it was argued that the defendant smoked while waiting for the ambush, and then discarded the cigarette butt at the scene after smoking. The defense stated that no cigarette ash or sparks were found at the scene, and the possibility that someone deliberately placed cigarette butts to frame the defendant could not be ruled out.
Another issue that took a lot of time to hear was whether the two stolen motorcycles and a white light car were related to the defendant. The prosecutor argued that about two months before the crime, a motorcycle and a scooter were stolen at a similar time. When they were later discovered, both vehicles were covered with car covers made by the same manufacturer. Therefore, it may have been stolen by the same prisoner to secure multiple modes of transportation. One of the motorcycles was found to react with gunpowder residue left when a gun was fired, so prosecutors believed that the motorcycle had been used in this case.
In addition, the prosecutor pointed out that the surveillance footage at the location where the Sokeda was stolen captured a car whose appearance was similar to the white light car the defendant borrowed from his childhood friend, arguing that this "can be inferred to a certain extent that the defendant is the prisoner." The testimony of the defendant's childhood friend and others during witness cross-examination did not conflict with the prosecution's claim. The defense countered that the surveillance picture was not clear, and the investigation area set when screening vehicles was too limited and unreasonable, so it could not be determined that the vehicle in the picture was the car borrowed by the defendant.
In addition to these two major points of contention, the prosecution and defense also have opposing views in many aspects. The court spent more than half a year trying to determine whether the defendant was the murderer. However, the defendant and the victim did not know each other, and the reason why the victim was killed has not yet been clarified.
The prosecutor revealed that while the background of the case has not yet been determined, information was obtained indicating that a person who allegedly had a dispute with the victim or his company lived in Fukuoka Prefecture, but did not provide details.
On the other hand, the investigation report of the third-party committee established by the company after the incident pointed out that the company had repeatedly conducted improper transactions such as real estate sales and purchases with specific corporate groups, resulting in losses.
According to investigators, the police continue to inquire about the situation from relevant parties regarding the above-mentioned investigation results, and are carefully investigating whether they are related to this case. The police also believe that there may be another instigator behind this case and are still investigating, but the case still leaves many unsolved mysteries.
