| Trial of Tetsuya Yamagami | |
|---|---|
| Court | Nara District Court |
| Full case name | Reiwa 5 (wa) No.7 令和5年(わ)第7号 [a] |
| Started | 28 October 2025 |
| Verdict | Pending (expected on 21 January 2026) |
| Defendant | Tetsuya Yamagami |
| Charge |
|
| Court membership | |
| Chief judge | Shinichi Tanaka [1] |
| Lay judges | 6 [2] |
The trial of Tetsuya Yamagami is part of the aftermath of the assassination of former prime minister Shinzo Abe on 8 July 2022. Tetsuya Yamagami, the sole suspect in the killing, was arrested at the scene after he shot Abe with a homemade firearm. Abe was later pronounced dead that day, and Yamagami was charged with murder, violations of the Firearm and Sword Possession Control Law, Weapon Manufacturing Law, Gunpowder Control Law and property damage. His criminal trial began on 28 October 2025 at the Nara District Court. [1]
During the first hearing, Yamagami acknowledged the charges outlined in the indictments. [b] His defense has focused on presenting mitigating factors across all counts. His surviving relatives were called to testify about the family's long-standing mental and financial difficulties, attributing them to his mother's extensive donations to the Unification Church (UC), which had impoverished the household and resulted in neglect of her children. The defense also argued that the homemade firearms constructed by Yamagami did not fall under the legal definition of a firearm as stipulated in the Firearm and Sword Possession Control Law. [3]
Prosecutors maintained that Yamagami's personal background should not influence the verdict. They presented evidence that he had put substantial effort into constructing and testing his weapons, arguing this demonstrated clear premeditation. [1] They also emphasized the danger posed to the public by carrying out the shooting in daylight in a crowded area. Noting that the killing of a former prime minister had no precedent in postwar Japan, prosecutors characterized the case as exceptionally serious and socially consequential. [4]
On 8 July 2022, former prime minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated while delivering a campaign speech in Nara. He was shot at close range with a homemade firearm constructed by Tetsuya Yamagami, who was immediately detained at the scene. Abe's death marked the first killing of a current or former Japanese prime minister in the postwar era. [4]
Following his arrest, Yamagami reportedly told investigators that his motive stemmed from resentment toward the Unification Church (UC), claiming that his family had been financially ruined by his mother's large donations to the organization. According to police statements and media reports, Yamagami believed Abe's public appearances at events linked to the UC signaled support for the group, which he held responsible for his family's hardships. [1]
Officially, the case is registered as "Reiwa 5 (wa) No.7" (令和5年(わ)第7号) [a] , held under Japan's lay judge system, [2] [5] and the presiding judge was Shinichi Tanaka (田中 伸一). [1] The trial admitted civilian spectators through a lottery system, with the first hearing on 28 October 2025 drawing 727 applicants for 32 available seats. [6]
Tetsuya Yamagami, 45, did not dispute the charges listed in the indictments, [1] [b] then stated that he was entrusting the legal arguments to his lawyers. [4]
The prosecution outlined Yamagami's stated motives: Yamagami's mother made excessive donations to the Unification Church (UC), which led to the family's financial collapse. After his eldest brother died by suicide in 2015, Yamagami's resentment toward the UC intensified. He planned to attack leading figures of the UC and began constructing homemade firearms. Due to the COVID-19 lockdowns, he abandoned this initial plan. After watching Shinzo Abe's video message for a UC-related organization, he came to believe that targeting Abe would raise public criticism of the UC, and he began tracking Abe's schedule during the House of Councillors election campaign. The prosecution emphasized that the crime was unprecedented in postwar Japan. [4]
Kei Satō was the candidate in the upcoming election who received Abe's endorsement speech on the day of the assassination. On 29 October, He testified that he had been informed by his aides on the afternoon of the previous day that Abe's campaign appearance at Yamato-Saidaiji Station had been hastily finalized. Satō was standing less than one metre from Abe when he heard the first shot. [8]
Satō condemned Yamagami's act as an attempt to silence speech through violence, describing it as an unforgivable affront to democracy. [9]
On 30 October, the police officer deployed to Yamato-Saidaiji Station for security testified that he witnessed Yamagami use a firearm resembling a bazooka to shoot at Abe a second time. When he rushed in and restrained Yamagami, he heard the suspect murmur "did that hit (当たったか)?" He testified that Yamagami offered no resistance during the arrest. [10]
On 4 November, the police officer assigned to investigate the shooting scene testified that a total of 12 projectiles were discharged in the two shots fired by Yamagami. Video evidence showed the hair of a man standing behind Abe being pushed upward, indicating that Yamagami's shots had a significant chance of striking bystanders. [11]
On 5 November, the police officer assigned to search Yamagami's residence testified that investigators found items including six homemade firearms, telescopic sights, cartridge cases, more than 20 kg of gunpowder stored in metal or plastic containers, and books related to murder. He described Yamagami's room as resembling a terrorist hideout. [12]
On 6 November, the prosecution presented in court the homemade firearm used in the assassination. Investigators conducted test-firing and measured a projectile speed of about 720 kilometres per hour, with the shot capable of penetrating four plywood boards. They stated that the weapon produced more than ten times the energy required to kill a person or animal. The prosecution also showed laboratory video footage demonstrating that the trajectories of all six projectiles dispersed widely upon firing.
The defense argued that the weight, shape, and other characteristics of Yamagami's firearm did not meet the statutory definition of a firearm under the Firearm and Sword Control Law. [3]
On 13 November, Yamagami's mother made her first appearance as a witness for the defense. Her physical appearance was concealed by portable partitions from the gallery. [13]
On 18 November, she testified in court for the second time.
Before the trial began, Yamagami's younger sister had been the only family member he agreed to meet during detention. She testified for the first time on 18 November, also shielded from the gallery by partitions, similar to her mother.
On 19 November, she continued her testimony.
Hiroshi Yamaguchi (山口 広) is a lawyer and a representative of the anti-cult lawyers network Zenkoku Benren. The network had sent a public protest against Abe's growing endorsement for the UC, which was rejected by Abe. [22] Yamaguchi testified for the defense on 19 November. He explained that the way Yamagami's mother was approached and drawn to a UC facility for membership by a UC follower who initially concealed their identity or intentions was a common practice of the UC. Once the UC obtained a copy of a target's family registry (戸籍謄本), they would persuade the individual to make large donations for the supposed prosperity of their family. [23]
Yamaguchi stated that the lawyers network had been aware of issues affecting shūkyō niseis (children of religious parents) like the defendant for about 20 years, but lacked the capacity to take substantial measures to assist them. He added that cases in which children's income was taken by their religious parents for donations, resulting in poverty, were widespread among shūkyō niseis. [23]
Shinichi Kamiya (神谷 慎一) is a lawyer and a member of Zenkoku Benren. A former UC follower, he has provided legal assistance to many shūkyō niseis since leaving the organization. He testified on 19 November that the UC imposed donation quotas on its followers to pressure them, and that adherents were often unconcerned about falling into bankruptcy as a result of excessive contributions.
Kamiya stated that parents deeply immersed in the religion frequently prioritized participation in religious activities over the care of their children, leading to inadequate diet or hygiene for those children. [23] He added that such parents believed their devotion would bring salvation to their children, while any deviation from the faith risked consigning them to hell.
When asked about the assassination, Kamiya testified that he knew individuals who had expressed thoughts of committing a similar act had the defendant not acted first. [22] He also stated that some people he knew believed Abe's endorsement video for a UC-related organization could lead to an incident like the assassination. [21]
On 20 November, direct interrogation of Yamagami commenced.
On 2 December, the judges asked Yamagami why he chose to target Abe. He responded that he initially did not harbor strong feelings against Abe, but after watching Abe's video message to an organization affiliated with the UC, a sense of revulsion and hostility gradually intensified. When asked whether he had considered targeting other politicians, Yamagami said that he viewed Abe as the central figure in the political connections of the UC, and that choosing another target would have weakened the "message" he intended to send. [31]
After Yamagami's questioning concluded on 2 December, Hideyoshi Sakurai , a specially appointed professor of sociology of religion at Hokkaido University, testified as a witness. Prior to the trial, he had met Yamagami in the detention center five times, with each session lasting about two hours, and had also interviewed Yamagami's sister. [32]
Sakurai stated that Yamagami had made considerable efforts in life but was unable to secure the kind of employment he hoped for. In reviewing his experiences, his resentment toward the UC intensified and eventually became intertwined with his preparations for the attack. [32] According to Sakurai, Yamagami's childhood was marked by constant family conflict related to his mother's religious donations. During this period, he assumed premature adult responsibilities—restraining his violent older brother and supporting a mother who neglected both emotional and financial caregiving duties. [33]
Sakurai characterized this kind of unreasonable emotional and practical burden as common among shūkyō niseis. He described Yamagami as an "adult child" who had long struggled with an inability to express himself, and whose acceptance of unfair circumstances and tendency toward altruistic behavior followed a pattern seen in many shūkyō niseis of such religious environments. [33]
On 3 December, the prosecution arranged for Abe's widow, Akie Abe, to sit beside the prosecutors under the victim participation system, which allows relatives of victims to take part in the proceedings. Yamagami did not look toward Akie during the hearing, keeping his attention on the documents before him. [34]
The prosecution asked whether Yamagami had ever expressed any apology to Abe's bereaved family; he acknowledged that he had not. The prosecutors then stated that Abe's emergency medical treatment had cost over 3 million yen and that the mutual aid association for national public servants had requested repayment from Yamagami, but he had not paid the amount. Yamagami responded that he lacked the funds to do so. He added that although he had received monetary contributions from supporters, he intended to return the donations if those supporters came to see that he was not the person they imagined. [35]
The prosecution further asked whether the total amount of money he had received during detention exceeded 6 million yen. Yamagami said he could not provide an exact figure, noting only that it amounted to several million yen. When asked whether he had transferred about 1 million yen to his younger sister, he again declined to disclose the specific amount. [35]
On 4 December, the final day of the defendant's questioning took place, this time without the attendance of Akie Abe. The defense asked Yamagami whether he had any message for her. Yamagami replied that he held no animosity toward the family of the former prime minister and said, "There is no doubt that I caused you to suffer for the past three and a half years. (…) I have also experienced the loss of family members, so there is no excuse for what I have done. I am deeply sorry." This was the first time since the assassination that Yamagami offered a direct apology to Abe’s bereaved family. [36]
This is different from an arraignment in the United States and other jurisdictions, as the evidence is examined even though the accused has admitted guilt.