Hiromitsu Takagi (hereinafter referred to as Takagi): Finally, I would like to say why this happened and what would happen in the future.As I had organized earlier, I think that the Supreme Court ruling denied the description of the large rice, but the interpretation of Takagi is a misunderstanding, and in fact, it is as if the swan theory was the main purpose of the large rice.That is.
If it was (indicating the slide), if it was either affirmed or denied, most programs would be a crime.If you deny this and affirm this, like a swan theory.
What did the big rice intend?Did you write as I thought?Perhaps the Swan theory may have been the Ministry of Justice, so the Ministry of Justice might have thought so.
Then, "Do the Ministry of Justice really think that is fine?"There is no such stupid thing that most programs are a crime if most of the programs are contrary to intentions.It would be a big problem if you thought it was really good and legislined and had been fighting this trial.It has to be complained clearly by the people.
By the way, it was exactly the same description as the explanation of the secretariat of the 2003 Legal Council.Therefore, it is not the person in charge of Mr. Yoshida, who wrote the large rice.It was such a idea from the beginning, so I just wrote it.Despite this original plan, no one, including me, noticed.When it comes to this interpretation, everyone is applicable.
Looking back on my memory, it was certainly written an exception, but I didn't think it was very important.
In the early days, most of them were "contrary to intentions", but I thought that they were completely dropped and dropped.However, it is written exceptionally, and it becomes this impossible interpretation.From 2003, I foresee this kind of thing, and I wonder if I could not see the problem more strongly.