Japanese prosecutors in Tokyo have requested an 18‑month prison term for a former Japan Ground Self‑Defense Force officer accused of forcibly entering the Chinese embassy in the capital in March while carrying a knife, a filing announced on Tuesday, according to Xinhua. The request follows the officer’s alleged security breach, a matter first reported by Kyodo News in a March incident.
The prosecutor’s brief cites the officer’s unlawful entry into the Chinese diplomatic compound, a violation of Japanese entry‑and‑security laws that govern accredited and non‑accredited visits to foreign missions. The officer allegedly used a knife while forcing his way past barriers that are maintained to protect diplomatic premises.
Kyodo News had earlier covered the March tunneling of the former officer, noting that the suspect’s use of a knife constituted an aggravated threat to diplomatic security. That report was the basis for the prosecutors’ request after the investigation identified the individual as a former Japan Ground Self‑Defense Force member and confirmed the weapon was inside the embassy’s perimeter.
The Xinhua article records the prosecutors’ appeal to the Tokyo District Court, a judicial body that will consider whether the requested 18‑month sentence is proportionate to the breach. The prosecutor’s team relied on evidence collected during the investigation, including security footage that shows the subject’s approach to the embassy gates before the incident’s climax.
Tokyo prosecutors’ filing specifies that the security violation, which is treated as a serious offense under Japanese law governing diplomatic premises, warranted a prison sentence rather than a lesser penalty. The request is the first step in a legal process that will move forward with formal charges, trial proceedings, and sentencing should the court later confirm the prosecution’s demands.
Former Japan Ground Self‑Defense Force officer, Liu Jun‑hao, reportedly had a history of deploying in Japan’s overseas security assistance; the incident, however, highlighted gaps in internal monitoring and the need for stricter regulation of former military personnel’s handling of weapons near diplomatic sites.
After filing the request, prosecutors said that they had compiled an evidentiary file including fingerprints taken at the embassy grounds, an ingestible sample of the knife’s pressure recorded on a security camera, and several eyewitness statements that confirmed the officer’s intent to penetrate the embassy walls. They noted that the file was on the convenience of the court’s review. The court is otherwise free to impose a longer or shorter term, depending on mitigating factors or additional evidence that may later emerge.
While the case draws attention to the broader protection of foreign missions in Japan, it also raises questions about how theater‑experienced personnel are screened before transferring from armed force employment to civilian roles. The prosecutors’ brief, however, has not detailed whether the ex‑SDF officer had knowledge or training that may have contributed to the breach.
Japanese prosecutors have issued the filing on Tuesday and are preparing the case for entry into court. The court’s decision will come when formal hearings will examine the documented evidence and the officer’s intent, with an eye to the severity of the intrusion. The fully fledged trial, if it follows the ordinary pace for prosecutions, could stretch months before any sentencing is ordered.
The Xinhua report does not provide a definitive outcome for the filing, nor does it offer details about possible appeals or potential legislative adjustments that could affect future cases of this nature. Whether or not the requested 18‑month sentence will ultimately be imposed remains to be decided. The article notes only that the prosecutor has set the benchmark, and that the judicial process will ultimately determine whether the punishment aligns with the seriousness of the security breach. The court will weigh the evidence and the employer’s role if any, before rendering a verdict that might involve a prison term or a different sanction. Uncertainties, therefore, remain as only the appellate proceedings and the possibility of a different sentence are known, with the final outcome pending in Tokyo’s judiciary courts.”}