The sentence of The Judgment. May 27th 2004, that day, The court secretary Terada accepted the original document.

The case of compensatory damages.(wa)No433 2001.

The date of final oral proceedings March 4th 2004.

The plaintiff Kimiko Nedu

Plaintiff's Lawyer Osamu Wakuta

Kazuki Kayano

The defendant Hachioji Ctiy

The represent Mayor Ryuuichi Kurosu

The defendant's Lawyer Kenji Kinosita

The formal adjudication

1 The claim of the plaintiff is dismissed.

2 The court fees will be paid by the plaintiff.

The fact and the reason

No1 The intention of the request.

1 The defendant, Metropolitan Tokyo, should pay 1 million yen plus 5% annual interest retroactively from the date of settlement for this case back to August 30th 1998.

2 The court fees will also be paid by the defendant

The plaintiff asked the court to grant the judgment and temporary application.

No 2 Summary of the case.

This case is that the plaintiff who is a teacher at a school established by the defendant claimed that Kunkoku, a kind of admonition, concerning the substance of the plaintiff's teaching from the Hachiouji City Board of Education, hereinafter City Board of Education, was illegal and asked for compensation and retroactive annual interest to be paid according to the Nation Compensation Law article 1.

1 The facts of a lack of conflict.


(1) The plaintiff had been serving at Ishikawa Junior High School as a teacher of home economics beginning April 1991.

(2)At The Ishikawa Junior High School on February 10th 1999 the plan of the management of the graduation ceremony was discussed in the teachers' meeting .

Noboru Ishikawa, who was principal of Ishikawa Junior High School beginning April 1998, herein after Principal Akiyama, outlined a plan that included playing the Kimigayo, Japanese national anthem, after the declaration of the opening of the graduation ceremony and placing the Hinomaru, the Japanese national flag, and the school flag on stands.
But the plaintiff made a speech opposing the plan,

(3)The plaintiff handed over to Principal Ishikawa and Vice Principal Junichi Satou a 7-sheet handout, named "The materials for considering the reasons opposing the display of the Hinomaru and singing The Kimigayo in Ishikawa Junior High School", hereinafter " the material handout of the case", the evidence Otu 1, and said "These were made by me and distributed to the teachers as materials for the teachers meetings. I would like the two of you to join the meeting after reading these."

The 7th page of " the material handout of the case", included a copy of a newspaper article about a believer in Aumu Shinrikoyou, who committed a subway attack using Sarin gas, and an article handwritten by the plaintiff underneath, hereinafter "the part of the handouts".

The plaintiff showed the part of the handouts to the Principal and told him she would refer to the Hinomaru and Kimigayo and asked his opinion.
(There is conflict about the exact content of this conversation, refer later.)

(4)The plaintiff gave her 3rd year students the last regular lessons, hereinafter " the lesson of the case", held during the week of February 15th of that year, and used part of the handouts , the evidence Kou 2, hereinafter " The handout of the case"

The plaintiff told the students in " the lesson of the case" "Don't you make mistake of following an order without thinking about whether it's good or bad like this article"

"I have been urged to make some decisions by the school or the society. I consider one by one whether they are good or bad. It is very hard. It takes bravery and determination sometimes. I give it enough thought and don't do anything I think is wrong and I will do what I think is right even when I'm alone "

" This is a way of thinking and a principle, not a matter which is good or bad.
Let's consider whether it is good to follow an order without thinking."

And read the article from the newspaper and the article she wrote.
The plaintiff told the students about the graduation ceremony

The plaintiff told the students that the principal of our school said in the teacher's meeting that he will display the Hinomaru on the stage by the tripod and play the Kimigayo on tape.

(5)The City Board of Education admonished, Kunkoku, the plaintiff by giving the document written as follows on August 30th that year.hereinafter "Kunkoku of the case".

"You gave students tuition on home economics class including all 3rd grade students, from February 16th 1999 to 19th, that was the same as criticizing the policy the operation of the school by the Principal by giving the handouts written that orders about the national flag and the national anthem by principal were enjoining obedience the same as the mind control of Aum Shinri religion believers and told content at a teachers' meeting ,

Such behavior is not proper as a civil servant of education and can't be tolerant because it damages the confidence of the school and teachers and is against the District Civil Servant Law

Therefore City Board of Education would strictly admonish you to prevent such things from ever happening again."

(6)By the way "The Regulation of The Guidance of Education for junior high school", in that Chapter 4 Special Activity . Making up of leading plan and management of its content," provides that" Teachers should lead to display the national flag and sing the national anthem, by understanding the meaning,

"The Book of social activity for the Guidance for Junior high school", created by the Ministry of Education, points out the meaning of the display of the national flag and singing of the national anthem saying that
" It is important to cultivate the students identity as Japanese and patriotism and realization and attitude to respect the national flag and the national anthem."

"The entrance ceremony and the graduation ceremony can be a good opportunity to make good manners and variety in school life and to motivate new life in a solemn and fresh atmosphere and to cultivate a mind of affiliation to a group such as a school, society or nation ."
"

Those facts are the facts of a lack of conflict or confirmed according to the evidence, Kou 1 7 69 Otsu 1 8 9, or all the effects of the pleadings

2 The issue and the claims of Litigant.

(1)The claim of the plaintiff.

A(a) It is an illegal act and representatively applicable as an "unjust control" and as such is prohibited by the "Fundamental of Education Law" article 10 section 1 that the board of education intervene in individual teacher's individual substance of a class directly and punish a teacher because of substance of the class.

Therefore this admonition against Fundamental of Education Law article 10 section 1 and against also Constitution article 23 and article 26.

The matter which the plaintiff tried to tell her students in her classes was that she wanted the students to be people who can act by their own thinking and not take authority's orders on trust.

Therefore it is against to Constitution article 13 and article 21 and Fundamental of Education Law article 1 which declares" The education must be done for cultivation of independent spirit of the nation" to admonish the plaintiff on this matter.

Moreover, this admonition is illegal because it against The School Education Law article 28 section 6 which determines that " A teacher will administer the education of their pupils" and this article section is applied to junior high school teachers by that law article 40.

(i) School event should be managed by decisions based on discussions in teachers' meetings. When the event is nearing it is common that to prepare in advance by questioning students and explanation of the teacher about the event.

The plaintiff only told the content of speaking of the Principal Akiyama as a fact in response to some students' questions about the graduation ceremony of the class.

Therefore it is an "unjust control" and illegal to admonish by take up this plaintiff's act .

(u) The plaintiff had agreement of Principal Akiyama about using the handouts in her classes.

The plaintiff told Principal Akiyama, on February 15th 1999, when she gave Principal Akiyama the handouts, by pointing "the part of the handouts" , that "Next week is the last classes for 3rd year students. I would like to tell the students about how to live by using these handouts beginning tomorrow" "I will use this by taking out the part for the teachers and change to pupil" "I think that the handouts has no mistake but I would like you to point out if there are mistakes of fact, after that I will change it " .

When the plaintiff asked the principal Akiyama "Will you respond to them when my students ask me what the principal will do about The Hinomaru and Kimigayo" The principal replied that "I will not respond"

So, the plaintiff confirmed with the principal by asking " Don't you mind that I will explain to my students that the principal is going to do the Hinomaru and Kimigayo" and The principal answered that" It is no problem to tell the truth. Do it with common sense"

After that, there wasn't any indication from the principal about the handouts.

Thinking with that progress, it is a surprise attack against the plaintiff and an unfair procedure of the
Board of Education to give the plaintiff this admonition.

(e)The defendant seems to claim that "the lesson of the case" deviates from The Regulation of The Guidance of Education and the act of public school education should be done in the limit of The Regulation of Guidance of Education.

However The Regulation of Guidance of Education should recognize that it has no power of constraint and just is a indication of an advice of nation about education.

Therefore, it can't be a reason for a legal sanction that some one's lesson deviated from The Regulation of Guidance of Education.

Principle that to recognize content of The Regulation of Guidance of Education narrow meaning and to see absolute is against the meaning of The School Education Law article 36 with the point" to cultivate fair sense".

The claim of defendant is the fault in "the lesson of the case" is that is deviants education which deviates past the limit of The Regulation of Guidance of Education, because it was done at the discretion of teacher's specialty about training thinking in education.

(i)The board of education forced "the Kunkou of the case" by collusion with a political sect for exclude the plaintiff from the field of education by calling the plaintiff " a defective teacher".

Therefore "the Kunkou of the case" is that it deviates from the discretion of the Board of Education and is illegal because of abuse of authority.

(u)Generally speaking, Kunkoku effects virtual disadvantage to the person who got the Kunkoku such as making them become disqualified for a salary increase.

The plaintiff was evaluated with the same lack of aptitude of the teacher by "the Kunkoku of the case."
and in after another admonition" the Kunkoku of the case" was pointed out as example of her bad circumstance.

Therefore the plaintiff got mental damage.

Those incident value less than 1 million Yen.

(2)The claim of the defendant.

Even though an unjust control by the administration power for education should be prevented, reasonable and necessary intervention by the administration in the contents and methods of education is not prohibited by the Fundamental Education Law article 10 .

Therefore, "the lesson of the case ", created by the plaintiff with "the handout of the case", including contents that Principals' management of education process which respect The Regulation of Guidance of Education are directions of order and obedience similar to that of Aum Shinrikyou who practiced mind control is the same as wrongly criticizing Principals all over Japan and school the management of the Principle of Isikawa Junior High School.

And such materials as "the lesson of the case" are not allowed for junior high school students who do not have complete ability of judgment, and falls outside of the pervue of the education to cultivate fair sense of judgment according to the School Education Law articles 35,36.

Therefore "the lesson of the case", with "the handout of the case", falls outside of the pervue of substance of Regulations of Guidance of Education, and the plaintiff's act is not appropriate for a public junior high school teacher and a disgrace of school and teachers.

(i) At "the lesson of the case" was created , in Ishikawa Junior High School, management of the Hinomaru and the Kimigayo in the graduation ceremony were being disputed by the teachers and hadn't been decided in the teachers' meeting yet.
However the plaintiff told students about the undecided content of teachers' meeting and did lesson that was the same as criticizing principle of the Principal on school management.

This act of the plaintiff is not only inappropriate for a school teacher who is a member of an organization, but a disgrace to schools and teachers.

(u)Principal Akiyama didn't permit the plaintiff's lesson distributing "the handout of the case" to her students and criticized the principal's school management.

And there is no fact also that the Principal Akiyama told to the plaintiff that she could tell her students the content of the teachers' meeting.

So, "the Kunkoku of the case" is not a sudden attack on the plaintiff.

(e) Herein before, "the Kunkoku of the case" was done for the reason that "the lesson of the case" was inappropriate for a public school teacher and not unfair domination prescribed by the Fundamental of Education Law article 10.

Therefore "the Kunkoku of the case" wasn't against not only the Fundamental of Education Law article 10 section 1 but the constitution article 23,26 and Fundamental of Education Law article 1.

The defendant doesn't claim that it is illegal to teach the Hinomaru Kimigayo in home economics class.

And the reason for "the admonition of the case" was that generally "the lesson of the case" varied from the intention of the Regulation of Guidance of Education, not for varied from individual contents of the Regulation of Guidance of Education, and content of "the handout of the case", was an extreme disgrace to schools and teachers.

i The Hachiouji Board of Education is authorized to admonish the plaintiff, who is an Ishikawa Junior High School teacher, because of having the power to supervise teachers' duties, according to "The Law of Management and Organization for Local Government" article 43 section 1.

And the Board of Education is authorized to admonish or not and the content of that admonishment.

u A"Kunkoku" is a measure done by an authority that has the power to supervise official's improvement of execution of duty as a warning.
A person who get a Kunkoku suffers no harm such as postponement of salary increase, and it differs from "Kaikoku", as a disciplinary measure of an administrative measure.

No3 Judgment of The Court

1, Finding Facts

The follow facts were found in "meaning facts of a lack of conflict", evidence K2,69, O14, the plaintiff, witness Akiyama, Kishi, pointed out in the document, however there was a judgment against parts of these facts follow, hole meaning of pleading.

(1)The progress before "the lesson of the case"

A In 1998, hereinafter the dates without year means 1998, February 10th, at Ishikawa junior high school, a teachers' meeting was held and a plan for the graduation ceremony was proposed by a ceremonial events committee organized by teachers.

Principal Akiyama said that he would play the Kimigayo following the opening words of the graduation ceremony and placing the Hinomaru,and the school flag on stands in a line.

The plaintiff made a speech opposing the plan. The chairman said" It will take time to discuss this subject" and decided to continue the discussion later on.

I The plaintiff gave Principal Akiyama and Vice Principal Satou " the material handout of the case", Otu 1, on February 15th.

In "the material handout of the case" the following was written, transition of the Hinomaru Kimigayo in school education, materials about how Japanese neighbor countries see the Hinomaru, the reason why the plaintiff is opposing displaying the Hinomaru titled "They said Globalization by the Hinomaru Kimigayo, But." "Real aim of doing the Hinomaru Kimigayo" "To protect the heritage built up by the Ishikawa Junior High School's teachers" The principal said that he would follow the law and order.

The plaintiff turned 7th page of "the material handout of the case" and told Principal Akiyama she would use it and tell about it in her class except issues concerning teachers and asked his opinion.

Principal Akiyama responded that she should use in common sense.

U In that conversation, the plaintiff claim that she declared to Principal Akiyama that she would distribute "The handout of the case" by changing a part of it and saying that Principal Akiyama said in the teachers' meeting that he will display The Hinomaru play the Kimigayo to her student.
There is a statement of the plaintiff about those items.

However there isn't objective evidence to confirm the statement of the plaintiff.
And there were many materials about transition of school education about the Hinomaru Kimigayo in "the material handout of the case", Principal Akiyama asked the plaintiff later again submission of "the material handout of the case"
While thinking of them, It can't be concluded that Principal Akiayama had understood concretely about the content of " the lesson of the case", which the plaintiff was going to do, and agreed to do " the lesson of the case" by such understanding.

By thinking about this and the statement about this of the witness Akiyama Noboru, Principal Akiyama, it can't be admitted the plaintiff's claim that Principal Akiyama had approved content of the plaintiff's lesson in advance.

(2) Contents of " the lesson of the case" etc.

A On the upper half of " The handout of the case" a copy of a newspaper article, about the trial of a criminal defendant, Toyoda, who is one of culprits in the "Subway Sarin Case", was printed.
The article was entitled, " In the past waiting for an order. Now accused the founder."

And the article pointed out the culprit that " He is a representative figure of today's Japanese who finally lose themselves by trying to keep their safety without act thinking themselves just obey orders from authorities or other around them " and quoted his witness that "

"I felt I didn't want to do that, but I thought I must do that after getting the order"

"I thought completely that we shouldn't judge an order from an authority, but just obey absolutely without think if it's right or wrong"

"I didn't think why. When I had an order, execution became everything . I thought that I shouldn't know the reason or the background and I don't need to know."

"I couldn't afford to think about the victims because to execute the order occupied my mind, my mind was blank."

and it was written "Why has our society brought up such people 'waiting for orders'" "there are still such people even if there is a difference of degree haven't we brought up our society since World War 2?" "We have given up even thinking ourselves"

I Articles, as follow, that handwriting of the plaintiff was written on the lower half of " The handout of the case" .

(a) " How do you interpret the words of criminal defendant Toyoda? Don't you think those are same words as the Principals' words, all over Japan, people were ordered to display the Hinomaru and made to sing the Kimigayo in the school ceremonies by board of education? Don't you think that is the same way of thinking?"

(i) " Actually, the Hinomaru and Kimigayo by themselves don't make a murder . But Aum believers also did not aim at murder in the beginning, even if Asahara aimed at it I guess other believers hadn't known . I guess the real aim was told to them after the mind control finished."

(u) "The most terrible thing is that the relationship that do or be done, to instruct or conduct or order is established, this is mind control, and a person can't refuse to do even a criminal thing, and in course of time will actively do it themselves.
It is human to do things we would never think of doing when the relationship 'order and obedience' were established.

This has been commonly seen in every era and every place in history, not only with Aum. Japan's aggressive wars were the same."

(e) "Today it's the same. The constitution of 'order and obedience' caused the cover-up case of the AIDS conspiracy at the Ministry of Health and Welfare and a pharmaceutical company."

(o) "By the way, what do you think that you children are made to see the Hinomaru or sing without explanation the history or meaning of ' Hinomaru Kimigayo' and the significance of the display or song by the Principal.
The heroes of the graduation ceremony are you."

U In " the lesson of the case", the plaintiff distributed to her students " The handout of the case" and told them preliminarily " Today, I would like you to tell about my most important thing in my life and I hope you think about your life" and read the newspaper article of " The handout of the case" and asked that " Haven't you had an experience that you followed an order or indication without thinking if it was good or bad like this article"

And the plaintiff told her student like that " I have been urged to make decisions in the school or the society. I have thought about which of them were good or bad one by one. It is very hard to do that. Sometimes, it needs a bravery or decision but I think that I have to do it even alone when I thought I was right I didn't to do it when it was wrong after enough thinking ." and read the part of handwritten on the handout.

In addition, the plaintiff told that "It is a matter of thinking and principle, not of which is right or wrong, Let's think that is it good to follow an order without thinking".

And because of asking her students whether the principal will display the Hinomaru the plaintiff told that " The principal told in the teacher's meeting 'We will display the Hinomaru on the stage in a tripod. We will play the Kimigayo on tape'"

E On February 16th, 3 girl students who took " the lesson of the case" came the room of the principal and told the Principal " We want to know the reason why you are going to play the Kimigayo and display the Hinomaru in our graduation ceremony".
Principal Akiyama told the students that he will execute his plan depending on The Regulation of Guidance of Education.

(3)The progress to the Kunkoku by the Hachiouji City Board of Education.

A In the teacher's meeting of Ishikawa Junior high school, held on February 18th, a discussion of the plan of management of the graduation ceremony was held.

The content of original plan presented by ceremonious event committee was that they wouldn't display the Hinomaru anytime anywhere and wouldn't play the Kimigayo. And the plan was voted, 22 person approved 2 person objected.

I On February 19 th, Vice -principal Satou had an inquiry from the City Board of Education about a paper which objected " the Hinomaru-Kimigayo" that was distributed by the plaintiff in her class.
So Vice-principal Satou had the delivery of " The handout of the case", evidence Kou 2, from the plaintiff

Vice-principal Satou told the plaintiff "When did you do the class? Which classes did you distribute it to?" " I was asked by the principal to tell you to stop the class, because it is not in The Regulation of Guidance of Education."

The plaintiff responded that "I can't help you out with anything now, because I told the principal about it in advance, and he said nothing. I already finished the lesson for all classes. "

U On February 20 th, Principal Aiyama ordered the plaintiff by word of mouth to stop her class using "The handout of the case".

The plaintiff responded that "I already finished all of the 3rd year classes " "I asked your judgment about ' The handout of the case' in advance , but received no directions. So, the class had been approved by you"

E On March 6 th, Principal Akiyama reported in the management committee of PTA, (Parent and Teacher's Association), that the Board of Education had reported the problem the plaintiff created using "The hand out of the case" in her classes.

O On March 8 th, Junichi Takagi, member of the Hachiouji City Assembly, hereinafter The member Takagi, posed a critical question about the plaintiff's lesson in the special Budget Committee of the Hachiouji City Assembly, evidence kou 77.

KA The Yomiuri Shinbun newspaper, dated March 10 th, carried an article about " the lesson of the case" titled "'Principals all over Japan just obey authority' 'Hinomaru-Kimigayo issue' 'A teacher of junior high school created critical lessons' 'comparing them with Aum believers' " and an opinion of an education critic "It wasn't that the teacher tried mind control on students ", evidence otu 2.
The Sankei Shinbun newspaper, dated on March 11 th, carried an article about the case entitled "Principals are same as Aum believers", evidence otu 3.

KI On March 12th and 15th, Nobuyuki Wada, the chief officer of the School Education Department of the City Board of Education, hereinafter Chief Officer Wada, held a hearing for the plaintiff.

KU On March 18 th, the day before the graduation ceremony, Principal Akiyama told students at the assembly of Seniors "We will set up the Hinomaru on a tripod and listen to an instrumental of the Kimigayo played on tape"

After that, students of graduation ceremony executive committee visited the Principal's room and told Principal Akiyama they were against displaying the Hinomaru and playing the Kimigayo.
This discussion continued until about 8 pm, evidence kou 8.

KE On March 19 th, the day of the graduation ceremony, the Kimigayo was played on tape before the graduating students' entrance and the Hinomaru was raised on the pole in schoolyard when the students' entered, evidence kou 79.
.

KO Principal Akiyama submitted a report, dated March 18 th, which mentioned the progress of "the lesson of the case" and his opinion to the City Board of Education.

From April to June, City Board of Education called on the Metropolitan Board of Education to take disciplinary measures against the plaintiff. But the Metropolitan Board of Education judged the disciplinary measures weren't necessary , about July.

The Metropolitan Board of Education told Chief Officer Wada one of the reasons for the judgment that they couldn't accuse the plaintiff of a violation against an official order, was because there wasn't an appropriate official order to the plaintiff by Principal Akiyama, witness Nobuyuki Wada.

SA After "Kunkoku of the case", Chief Officer Wada responded in an interview with the Asahi Shinbun newspaper "It is written clearly in The Regulation of Guidance of Education to display the Hinomaru and to play the Kimigayo in graduation ceremonies. It can't be tolerated for a teacher to tell students 'Let's think about that' because it means objecting to The Regulation of Guidance of Education", evidence kou 35.

2 Examination

(1)The Law of Local Public Officers article 33 provides that "Officer must not act to damage the confidence of officers or dishonor the organization as a whole". So, Board of Education of a city, town or village can send a document of Knkoku by document when a teacher of public school acts in violation of this article according to The Law of Organization and Management of Local Administration of Education article 37, article 43 section 1.

And it is clear that "Kunkoku of the case" was done depend on aforementioned law by aforementioned Finding Facts.

However, the above discretion of exercise the authority to supervise the service of Board of Education of a city, town or village should be admitted within a limit which is not unjust domination of education, according to Fundamental of Education Law article 10 section 1 which provides that "Education must be done without obeying unjust domination and with direct responsibility to the whole nation"

(2)In the teachers' meeting, which was held before the "lesson of the case" there was a conflict between the Principal who was going to display the Hinomaru and play the Kimigayo during the graduation ceremony and teachers who opposed that. The conflict still hadn't been settled when "the lesson of the case" was created.

The plaintiff had an objection about displaying the Hinomaru and playing the Kimigayo during the graduation ceremony and asked the Principal to change his mind.

It was such a situation, the plaintiff criticized that Principals all over Japan who conducted displays of the Hinomaru and playing the Kimigayo have same thinking as Aum believers who committed horrible crimes, the subway Sarin case, people will execute any crime without willingly opposing the relationship and will carry out any direct orders.
And the plaintiff distributed the handout which mentioned that to her students.

Moreover, adding the distribution of the handout, the plaintiff told students that Principal Akiyama said in the teachers' meeting he would display the Hinomaru and play the Kimigayo .

Facts hereinbefore are certified in above-mentioned 1.

And as certified in above-mentioned No2, 1 (5) the reason of "Kunkoku of the case" was that the plaintiff distributed "the handout of the case" and told her students content of a teachers' meeting and her lesson was the same as criticizing the school management principles of the Principal.

(3) By the way, the plaintiff claims that to Board of Education intervened directly in teachers on individual content of lessons and judged it right or wrong and punish them due to the content of the class is veritable to " unjust domination" which is prohibited by the Fundamental of Education Law.

And the plaintiff claims that "The aim of "the lesson of the case" was to tell students that the plaintiff wanted them to become a person who act on individual thinking. So a measure which prohibit it is against Fundamental of Education Law article 1, which asks to cultivate independent spirit, and against School Education Law article 28 section 6 article 40 which provide respect for the independency of education of teachers'"

Then I investigated, thinking that the Fundamental of Education Law allows Administration of education intervene in education, providing that "Administration of education must be executed, under consciously with with the aim to establish fixed and various conditions for accomplishment of the purpose of education", article section 2 , following that Law's article 10 section 1 which is the substance of the regulation of prohibition of unjust domination for education.

the substance of the Law the article 10 section 1 should be interpreted that it is not to wholly prohibit Administration of education to impose some restriction for a way of education, but permits it if it is a measure to accomplish the purpose of education if it is indispensable and reasonable.
(refer from the Supreme Court dated 1968 (a) No 1614, The Collection of Judicial Decision of the court volume 30 No 5 page 615, dated May 21 1976 . )

This matter is interpreted as same as on the law article 1 which provides for cultivation of independent spirit and the School Education Law article 28 section 5 ,article 40 which covers that teacher administered education.

Therefore it should be admitted that a organization of administration of education measure the supervise of service point out that there is a part that must be correct in a teacher's lesson in a limited way not violating the meaning of the above .

Therefore, according to above-mentioned 1 (1)(2), the plaintiff has had a strong opinion opposing the display of Hinomaru and playing of Kimigayo at the graduation ceremony and made a handout that
Principals all over the country, who's principle are against hers, are mind-controlled the same as believers of a religion which committed serious crimes, distributed it to her junior high school students.

The method of " the lesson of the case" which compared Principals to criminals can't be assessed that it is a way which is normally necessary to achieve the purpose of education with respect to independence the plaintiff aimed.

And even though the plaintiff was given a measure of admonition, Kunkoku, by the educational administration for she adopted method of education abovementioned, it doesn't prevent the plaintiff from creating education with her purpose another way .

And it is clear that "Kunkoku of the case", enforced by City Board of Education is against " the lesson of the case", doesn't make legal disadvantage directly to the plaintiff who was admonished, and differs from the kind of admonition defined by The Law of Local Government Employees .

By consideration of those reasons, it is not unsuitable that City Board of Education admonished through the "Kunkoku of the case" because there were parts should be corrected in the plaintiff's way of giving that lesson.
So "Kunkoku of the case" does not violate the meaning of section 10 article 1 of the Fundamental Law of Education, and other regulations that the plaintiff pointed out.

Therefore the plaintiff's claim that above-mentioned can't be adopted.

"Kunkoku of the case" doesn't deviate from the exercise of discretion which admitted to the City Board of Education for authority of supervision to public service, even if taking into account for the section 10 article 1 of the Fundamental Law of Education which regulate to exclude an unfair direction for education, or another regulation that the plaintiff pointed out.

(4) The plaintiff clams that it isn't illegal whatever to inform students contents of the teacher's meeting about a school event.

However it was certificated above-mentioned in (1)(2) that the plaintiff mentioned the proposal of Principal Akiyama in the teacher's meeting in same time of the class using " The handout of the case"
which criticized the way Principals in the whole country think.

So it can't be said that the City Board of Education admonished "Kunkoku of the case" by considered a matter which should not be considered as exercise authority of supervision to public service, even thou considered that above -mentioned is one factor that composes " the lesson of the case"

Then, "Kunkoku of the case" can't be said to be illegal and falls outside of the pervue of the discretion that is permitted to the City Board of Education.

(5) Moreover, the plaintiff clams that it is a surprise attack against the plaintiff and irrelevant of the procedure to the City Board of Education to admonish through the "Kunkoku of the case" at a later time , because of the plaintiff was given approval by Principal Akiyama about to showing the students the content of " the lesson of the case" and the content of the teacher's meeting.

However , as judged in the above-mentioned 1(1)u, it can't recognize that Principal Akiyama had fully consented about concrete contents of "the lesson of the case" which the plaintiff planned.

Though, it can say that Principal Akiyama had an opportunity to direct something for the content of the lesson which the plaintiff was going to do, because the plaintiff submitted to Principal Akiyama " the handout of the case" in advance and told him that she would take up the Hinomaru-Kimigayo in the graduation exercises issue in her class.

However, as explained in above (3), it clearly can't be said that the omission of Principal Akiyama that he didn't direct in advance caused the illegality of procedure for "Kunkoku of the case" by City Board of Education later on.
So the charges of the plaintiff can't be supported.

(6) And, the plaintiff clams that "Kunkoku of the case" was enforced for exclude the plaintiff from the field of the education in conspiracy with some political group, so the City Board of Education deviated

However, as explained above(3),

"Kunkoku of the case" should be interpreted that it doesn't correspond to unfair direction which is provided against by the Fundamental Law of Education article 10 section 1,

"Kunkoku of the case", for the plaintiff, is not a admonition that provided in the Law of Local Government Employee, but limited in measure as supervision of public service,

The disadvantage is not as serious as the plaintiff claims,
its content is not such as to exclude the plaintiff from the field of education,
does not lose equilibrium as a measure with consideration that " the lesson of the case" in which Principals are equated to criminals,
"Kunkoku of the case" can't be judged that it was executed for a purpose that the plaintiff's claim,
"Kunkoku of the case" can't be judged as a measure with deviation or misappropriation of discretion of exercise of jurisdiction of supervision of public service for the City Board of Education.

Therefore the claim of the plaintiff that " Kunokoku of the case" is illegal is not true.

3 conclusion

By above mentioned, not necessary to judge for another matters, we reject the plaintiff's claims of this case because of there are insufficient reasons.

Tokyo District Court Hachiouji Branch civil affairs No 3 department

Presiding Judge Hideho Okabe

Judge Yutaka Taniguchi

Judge Naoyuki Yamada

平成16年5月27日判決言渡　同日原本領収　裁判所書記官　寺田昌玄
The sentence of The Judgment. May 27th 2004, that day, The court secretary Terada accepted the original document.

平成13年（ワ）第４４３号　損害賠償請求事件
The case of compensatory damages.(wa)No433 2001.

口頭弁論終結日　平成１６年３月４日
The date of final oral proceedings March 4th 2004.

　　　　　　　　　　　判　　　　　　　　決
The Judgment.

　東京都八王子市川口町５

　　　　　　　　原　　　　　　告　　　　根　津　公　子
The plaintiff Kimiko Nedu

　　　　　　　　訴訟代理人弁護士　　　　和久田　　　修
Plaintiff's Lawyer Osamu Wakuta
　　　　　　　　同　　　　　　　　　　　萱　野　一　樹
Kazuki Kayano

東京都八王子市元本郷町３丁目２４番１号
　　　　　　　　被　　　　　　告　　　　八　王　子　市
The defendant Hachioji Ctiy

　　　　　　　　代理者市長　　　　黒　須　隆　一
The represent Mayor Ryuuichi Kurosu

　　　　　　　　訴訟代理人弁護士　　　　木　下　健　治
The defendant's Lawyer Kenji Kinosita

主　　　　　　　　文
The formal adjudication

１　原告の請求を棄却する。
1 The claim of the plaintiff is dismissed.

２　訴訟費用は原告の負担とする。
2 The court fees will be paid by the plaintiff.

事実及び理由
The fact and the reason

第1　請求の趣旨（原告）
No1 The intention of the request.

１　被告は，原告に対し，金１００万円及びこれに対する平成１１年８月３０日
　　から支払済みまで年５分の割合による金員の支払をせよ。
1 The defendant, Metropolitan Tokyo, should pay 1 million yen plus 5% annual interest retroactively from the date of settlement for this case back to August 30th 1998.

　2　訴訟費用は被告の負担とする。
2 The court fees will also be paid by the defendant

　との判決並びに仮執行の宣言を求めた。
The plaintiff asked the court to grant the judgment and temporary application.

第２　事案の概要
No 2 Summary of the case.

　　　本件は，被告の設置する中学校の教諭である原告が，その授業内容等に関して八王子市教育委員会（以下「市教委」という。）から訓告を受けたことが違法であると主張して，国家賠償法１条による損害賠償金と遅延損害金の支払を求めている事案である。

This case is that the plaintiff who is a teacher at a school established by the defendant claimed that　Kunkoku, a kind of admonition, concerning the substance of the plaintiff's teaching from the Hachiouji City Board of Education, hereinafter City Board of Education, was illegal and asked for compensation and retroactive annual interest to be paid according to the　Nation Compensation Law article 1.

１　争いのない事実等
1 The facts of a lack of conflict.

（1）原告は，平成３年４月から，八王子市立石川中学校（以下「石川中学校」　　という。）の家庭科担当教諭として勤務していた者である。
(1) The plaintiff had been serving at Ishikawa Junior High School as a teacher of home economics beginning April 1991.

（2）石川中学校では，平成１１年２月１０日開催の職員会議において，卒業式の運営に関する案が議論された。
(2)At The Ishikawa Junior High School on February 10th 1999 the plan of the management of the graduation ceremony was discussed in the teachers' meeting .

平成１０年４月から石川中学校の校長の職にあった秋山　�f（以下「秋山校長」という。）は，卒業式の開式のことばの後に，君が代の演奏を行い，また，日の丸旗を校旗と並べてスタンドに設置する旨を述べたが，原告はこれに反対する意見を述べた。
Noboru Ishikawa, who was principal of Ishikawa Junior High School beginning April 1998, herein after Principal Akiyama, outlined a plan that included playing the Kimigayo, Japanese national anthem, after the declaration of the opening of the graduation ceremony and placing the Hinomaru, the Japanese national flag, and the school flag on stands.
But the plaintiff made a speech opposing the plan,

　（3）原告は，同年２月１５日，秋山校長及び石川中学校の教頭である佐藤純一（以下「佐藤教頭」という。）に対し，「石川中で『日の丸』を掲揚すること・『君が代』を斉唱することに反対する理由，および考えるための資料」と題する7枚綴りのプリント（乙１。以下「本件資料プリント」という。）
を手渡し，「これは，職員会議の資料として昨年私が作り皆さんに配ったものですが，今年度いらしたお二人にも読んでから職員会議に参加して欲しい。」と述べた。

（3）The plaintiff handed over to Principal Ishikawa and Vice Principal Junichi Satou a 7-sheet handout, named "The materials for considering the reasons opposing the display of the Hinomaru and singing The Kimigayo in Ishikawa Junior High School", hereinafter " the material handout of the case", the evidence Otu 1, and said "These were made by me and distributed to the teachers as materials for the teachers meetings. I would like the two of you to join the meeting after reading these."

本件資料プリントの７枚目には，地下鉄サリン事件の実行であるオウム真理教の信者に関する新聞記事を複写し，その下部に原告が手書で文章を付加した書面（以下「本件プリント部分」という。）が綴られていた。
The 7th page of " the material handout of the case", included a copy of a newspaper article about a believer in Aumu Shinrikoyou, who committed a subway attack using Sarin gas, and an article handwritten by the plaintiff underneath, hereinafter "the part of the handouts".

そして，原告は，秋山校長に対して，本件プリント部分を開いた上，日の丸・君が代について授業で触れることを告げ，意見を求めた（もっとも，その際の具体的な会話の内容については，後記のとおり争いがある。）。
The plaintiff showed the part of the handouts to the Principal and told him she would refer to the Hinomaru and Kimigayo and asked his opinion.
(There is conflict about the exact content of this conversation, refer later.)

(4）　石川中学校では，同年２月１５日からの１週間，３学年の生徒に対する最後の通常の授業がされたが，原告は，本件プリント部分を一部修正した別紙のプリント（甲２。以下「本件教材プリント」という。）を使用した授業を行った（以下「本件授業」という。）。
(4）The plaintiff gave her 3rd year students the last regular lessons, hereinafter " the lesson of the case", held during the week of February 15th of that year, and used part of the handouts , the evidence Kou 2, hereinafter " The handout of the case"

原告は，本件授業において，「あなたたちは良いことか悪いことかを考えずに，この記事のように，指示や命令に従ってしまった体験はなかっただろうか。」
The plaintiff told the students in " the lesson of the case" "Don't you make mistake of following an order without thinking about whether it's good or bad like this article"

「私は学校や社会の中で判断を迫られることがあり，そのときはいいことか悪いことかをひとつひとつ考える。これは大変なことであり，時には勇気や決意が必要となることもあるが，私は自分の頭でよく考えておかしいと思ったことはやらず，正しいと思えば一人でも行動しなければと思っている。」
"I have been urged to make some decisions by the school or the society. I consider one by one whether they are good or bad. It is very hard. It takes bravery and determination sometimes. I give it enough thought and don't do anything I think is wrong and I will do what I think is right even when I'm alone "

「これは思想・信条の問題であって，どちらが良いとか悪いとかいう問題ではなく，考えずに指示に従う姿勢についていいことかどうかを考えよう。」
" This is a way of thinking and a principle, not a matter which is good or bad.
Let's consider whether it is good to follow an order without thinking."

などと話し，プリントの新聞記事の部分や手書部分を読み上げた。また，原告は，卒業式について，

And read the article from the newspaper and the article she wrote.
The plaintiff told the students about the graduation ceremony

「校長先生は職員会議で『日の丸を舞台に三脚で置く。君が代は奏楽で流す』と言っている。」と生徒に伝えた。
The plaintiff told the students that the principal of our school said in the teacher's meeting that he will display the Hinomaru on the stage by the tripod and play the Kimigayo on tape.

（5） 市教委は，同年８月３０日，原告に対し，以下の内容を記載した文書を交　付する方法により訓告をした　（以下「本件訓告」という。）。
（5）The City Board of Education admonished, Kunkoku, the plaintiff by giving the document written as follows on August 30th that year.hereinafter "Kunkoku of the case".

　　 「あなたは，平成１１年２月１６日から１９日にかけて，八王子市立石川中　学校の当時の3学年全学級の家庭科の授業時間にあって，校長による国旗・国歌に関する指導が，オウム真理教と同じマインドコントロールされた命令服従の指導であるとしたプリントを配布し，職員会議の内容を生徒に示し，校長の学校運営方針を批判するに等しい授業を行った。
"You gave students tuition on home economics class including all 3rd grade students, from February 16th 1999 to 19th, that was the same as criticizing the policy the operation of the school by the Principal by giving the handouts written that orders about the national flag and the national anthem by principal were enjoining obedience the same as the mind control of Aum Shinri religion believers and told content at a teachers' meeting ,

かかる行為は地方公務員法に抵触する，教育公務員たるにふさわしくない行為であって，学校及び職の信用を著しく傷つける誠に許し難いものである。
Such behavior is not proper as a civil servant of education and can't be tolerant because it damages the confidence of the school and teachers and is against the District Civil Servant Law

よって，今後かかることのないように文書をもって厳に訓告する。」
Therefore City Board of Education would strictly admonish you to prevent such things from ever happening again."

（6）　なお，中学校学習指導要領は，「第４章特別活動」の「指導計画の作成と内容の取扱い」において，「入学式や卒業式などにおいては，その意義を踏まえ，国旗を掲揚するとともに，国歌を斉唱するよう指導するものとする。」と定めている。
（6）By the way "The Regulation of The Guidance of Education for junior high school", in that Chapter 4 Special Activity . Making up of leading plan and management of its content," provides that" Teachers should lead to display the national flag and sing the national anthem, by understanding the meaning,

文部省が発行した「中学校指導書特別活動編」は，上記の国旗掲揚等の意義について，

日本人としての自覚を養い，国を愛する心を育てるとともに，生徒が将来，国際社会において尊敬され，信頼される日本人として成長していくためには，国旗及び国歌に対して正しい認識をもたせ，それらを専重する態度を育てることは重要なことであること

，また，入学式，卒業式は，学校生活に有意義な変化や折り目を付け，厳粛かつ清新な雰囲気の中で，新しい生活への動機付けを行い，学校，社会，国家等の集団への所属感を深める上で良い機会となるものである

ことを指摘している。
"The Book of social activity for the Guidance for Junior high school", created by the Ministry of Education, points out the meaning of the display of the national flag and singing of the national anthem saying that
" It is important to cultivate the students identity as Japanese and patriotism and realization and attitude to respect the national flag and the national anthem."

"The entrance ceremony and the graduation ceremony can be a good opportunity to make good manners and variety in school life and to motivate new life in a solemn and fresh atmosphere and to cultivate a mind of affiliation to a group such as a school, society or nation ."
"

（以上の事実は，当事者間に争いのない事実か，証拠［甲１，７，６９，乙１，８，９］及び弁論の全趣旨によって認められる。）

Those facts are the facts of a lack of conflict or confirmed according to the evidence, Kou 1 7 69 Otsu 1 8 9, or all the effects of the pleadings

２　争点及び当事者の主張
2 The issue and the claims of Litigant.

（1）原告の主張
(1)The claim of the plaintiff.

　ア（ア）　教育委員会が，個々の教師の個々の授業内容に直接介入してその当否を判断し，授業内容を理由として処分をすることは，教育行政による教育内容に対する違法不当な支配介入であり，教育基本法１０条１項の禁止する「不当な支配」に定型的に該当する。
A(a) It is an illegal act and representatively applicable as an "unjust control" and as such is prohibited by the "Fundamental of Education Law" article 10 section 1 that the board of education intervene in individual teacher's individual substance of a class directly and punish a teacher because of substance of the class.

したがって，本件訓告は，教育基本法１０条１項に違反し，憲法２３条，２６条にも違反する。

Therefore this admonition against Fundamental of Education Law article 10 section 1 and against also Constitution article 23 and article 26.

また，原告が本件授業で生徒に伝えたかったことは，上からの押し付けを一方的に鵜のみにしてしまうのではなく，自分の頭で考え行動できる人間になって欲しいという内容であったところ，この内容を捉えて処分を行うことは，憲法１３条，２１条に反し，「教育は自主的精神に充ちた国民の育成を期して行わなければならない。」と定めた教育基本法1条にも反し，許されない。

The matter which the plaintiff tried to tell her students in her classes was that she wanted the students to be people who can act by their own thinking and not take authority's orders on trust.

Therefore it is against to Constitution article 13 and article 21 and Fundamental of Education Law article 1 which declares" The education must be done for cultivation of independent spirit of the nation" to admonish the plaintiff on this matter.

　さらに，学校教育法２８条６項は，「教諭は，児童の教育をつかさどる。」と規定し，この規定は同法４０条により中学校の教諭についても準用されているところ，同条項は，教育の自主性の原理を表現するものであるというべきであるから，本件訓告は，これにも反する違法なものである。
Moreover, this admonition is illegal because it against The School Education Law article 28 section 6 which determines that " A teacher will administer the education of their pupils" and this article section is applied to junior high school teachers by that law article 40.

（イ）　　学校行事は，職員会議で論議の上，決定し実施するべきものであるが，行事が近くなると，行事に関し生徒が質問したり教員から話したりしながら進めるのが一般的であるところ，原告は，本件授業の中で卒業式に関する生徒の質問に答えて，秋山校長の職員会議での発言の内容を事実として述べたにすぎない。
(i) School event should be managed by decisions based on discussions in teachers' meetings. When the event is nearing it is common that to prepare in advance by questioning students and explanation of the teacher about the event.

The plaintiff only told the content of speaking of the Principal Akiyama as a fact in response to some students' questions about the graduation ceremony of the class.

したがって，このことをとらえて処分の対象とすることは，「不当な支配」に当たるものとして違法である。
Therefore it is an "unjust control" and illegal to admonish by take up this plaintiff's act .

（ウ）　原告は，本件教材プリントを使用した授業を行うことにつき事前に秋山校長から了承を得ていた。
(u) The plaintiff had agreement of Principal Akiyama about using the handouts in her classes.

　　　　　すなわち，原告は，平成１１年２月１５日に秋山校長に対して本件資料プリントを渡した際，本件プリント部分を指し示して，「今週は３年生最後の授業である。明日からこのプリントを使って生き方の問題について話をする。」「教員に向けて書いた部分は削り，子ども向けに書き換えて使う。」「誤りはないつもりであるが，もしこのプリントに事実誤認があれば指摘して欲しい。誤りがあれば直す。」などと述べた。
The plaintiff told Principal Akiyama, on February 15th 1999, when she gave Principal Akiyama the handouts, by pointing "the part of the handouts" , that "Next week is the last classes for 3rd year students. I would like to tell the students about how to live by using these handouts beginning tomorrow" "I will use this by taking out the part for the teachers and change to pupil" "I think that the handouts has no mistake but I would like you to point out if there are mistakes of fact, after that I will change it " .

また，原告が「生徒から，日の丸・君が代を校長先生はどうするのかという質問が出た場合，生徒たちに答えてくれるか。」と問うたところ，秋山校長が「答えない。」と言ったことから，「校長が実施すると言っている事実を話すが，問題はないか。」と確認を求めたのに対し，秋山校長は，「事実を言うことは問題ない。良識に沿ってするように。」と述べた。
When the plaintiff asked the principal Akiyama "Will you respond to them when my students ask me what the principal will do about The Hinomaru and Kimigayo" The principal replied that "I will not respond"

So, the plaintiff confirmed with the principal by asking " Don't you mind that I will explain to my students that the principal is going to do the Hinomaru and Kimigayo" and The principal answered that" It is no problem to tell the truth. Do it with common sense"

そして，その後，秋山校長からは本件教材プリントに関して何の指摘もなかった。
After that, there wasn't any indication from the principal about the handouts.

こうした経過に照らせば，後になって市教委が本件訓告をすることは，原告に対する不意打ちであり，手続の適正を欠くものである。

Thinking with that progress, it is a surprise attack against the plaintiff and an unfair procedure of the
Board of Education to give the plaintiff this admonition.

（エ）　　 被告は，本件授業が学習指導要領に逸脱しており，公立学校の教育活動はあくまで学習指導要領の枠内で行われるべき旨主張するもののようである。
(e)The defendant seems to claim that "the lesson of the case" deviates from The Regulation of The Guidance of Education and the act of public school education should be done in the limit of The Regulation of Guidance of Education.

しかしながら，学習指導要領は，法的拘束力（法規性）を有するものではなく，学習教育内容に関する国の指導助言的基準が公示されたものにすぎないと解すべきであるから，学習指導要領に逸脱したことがなんらかの法的制裁の理由となるものではない。
However The Regulation of Guidance of Education should recognize that it has no power of constraint and just is a indication of an advice of nation about education.

Therefore, it can't be a reason for a legal sanction that some one's lesson deviated from The Regulation of Guidance of Education.

また，学習指導要領の文面を絶対視しその文面を狭く解釈し，その範囲のみでしか公立学校での教育活動を許容しないという方針は，学校教育法３６条が中学校の教育目標の一つとして「公正な判断力を養うこと」を挙げている趣旨に反するものである。
Principle that to recognize content of The Regulation of Guidance of Education narrow meaning and to see absolute is against the meaning of The School Education Law article 36 with the point" to cultivate fair sense".

　　　本件授業は，教育における「思考力の訓練」の側面についての教師の専門的裁量の行使としてなされたものであり，本件授業が学習指導要領の枠を超える偏向教育であるという被告の主張は誤りである。
The claim of defendant is the fault in "the lesson of the case" is that is deviants education which deviates past the limit of The Regulation of Guidance of Education, because it was done at the discretion of teacher's specialty about training thinking in education.

イ　　市教委が本件訓告を強行したのは，一部の政治勢力と結託し，原告を問題教員に仕立て上げ，教育現場から排除しようとする目的に基づくものであるから，本件訓告は市教委の裁量権を逸脱し権限の濫用に当たる違法なものというべきである。
(i)The board of education forced "the Kunkou of the case" by collusion with a political sect for exclude the plaintiff from the field of education by calling the plaintiff " a defective teacher".

Therefore "the Kunkou of the case" is that it deviates from the discretion of the Board of Education and is illegal because of abuse of authority.

ウ　　一般に，訓告は，訓告を受けた者が昇給欠格該当者とされるなどの実質的な不利益を与えるように機能するものである。
(u)Generally speaking, Kunkoku effects virtual disadvantage to the person who got the Kunkoku such as making them become disqualified for a salary increase.

そして，原告は，本件訓告により，教員としての適格性を欠くとの評価を受けたに等しく，また，後に受けた処分において本件訓告が悪情状事実として挙げられているなど，著しい精神的苦痛を被った。
The plaintiff was evaluated with the same lack of aptitude of the teacher by "the Kunkoku of the case."
and in after another admonition" the Kunkoku of the case" was pointed out as example of her bad circumstance.

Therefore the plaintiff got mental damage.

これを金銭に評価すれば金１００万円を下らない。

Those incident value less than 1 million Yen.

（2）被告の主張
（2）The claim of the defendant.

　ア（ア）　教育に対する行政権力の不当な介入は排除されるべきであるとしても，許容される目的のために必要かつ合理的と認められるものは，たとえ教育の内容及び方法に関するものであっても，教育基本法１０条の禁止するところではない。

Even though an unjust control by the administration power for education should be prevented, reasonable　and necessary intervention by the administration in the contents and methods of education is not prohibited by the Fundamental Education Law article 10 .

　　　　しかるところ，原告がした本件教材プリントに基づく本件授業は，法的根拠のある学習指導要領を尊重してなされた校長による教育課程の管理について，あたかもオウム真理教と同じく心理的にマインドコントロールされた命令，服従による指導であるという内容を含み，このような誤った前提のもとに，全国の校長に対する誤った批判や石川中学校の校長の学校運営に対する批判をするものに等しい。
Therefore, "the lesson of the case ", created by the plaintiff with "the handout of the case", including contents that Principals' management of education process which respect The Regulation of Guidance of Education are directions of order and obedience similar to that of Aum Shinrikyou who practiced mind control is the same as wrongly criticizing Principals all over Japan and school the management of the Principle of Isikawa Junior High School.

また，このような本件授業は，学校教育法３５条，３６条に規定する公正な判断力を養う教育から大きくはずれ，完全には判断能力が備わっていない中学生に対して認められるようなものとはいえない。

And such materials as "the lesson of the case" are not allowed for junior high school students who do not have complete ability of judgment, and falls outside of the pervue of the education to cultivate fair sense of judgment according to the School Education Law articles 35,36.

以上のとおりであるから，本件教材プリントを使用した授業は，学習指導要領の趣旨を逸脱し，公立中学校教員としてふさわしくない行為というべきであり，原告の行為は，学校及び職に対する信用失墜行為にあたる。
Therefore "the lesson of the case", with "the handout of the case", falls outside of the pervue of substance of Regulations of Guidance of Education, and the plaintiff's act is not appropriate for a public junior high school teacher and a disgrace of school and teachers.

　（イ）　　本件授業当時，石川中学校においては，卒業式における日の丸旗・君が代に関する取扱いについて教職員間で議論中であり，職員会議でも確定していない状態であったところ，原告は，確定されていない職員会議の内容を生徒に示し，校長の学校運営方針を批判するに等しい授業を行ったものである。
(i) At "the lesson of the case" was created , in Ishikawa Junior High School, management of the Hinomaru and the Kimigayo in the graduation ceremony were being disputed by the teachers and hadn't been decided in the teachers' meeting yet.
However the plaintiff told students about the undecided content of teachers' meeting and did lesson that was the same as criticizing principle of the Principal on school management.
原告のこの行為は，学校教職員という組織の一員の行為としてふさわしくないばかりでなく，学校及び職の信用を著しく傷つ　ける行為である。
This act of the plaintiff is not only inappropriate for a school teacher who is a member of an organization, but a disgrace to schools and teachers.

　（ウ）　　秋山校長は，原告が，本件教材プリントを生徒に配り，さらに，校長の学校運営について批判めいた指導をすることを了承したことはない。
(u)Principal Akiyama didn't permit the plaintiff's lesson distributing "the handout of the case" to her students and criticized the principal's school management.

また，職員会議の内容を示すことを秋山校長が了承した事実もない。したがって，本件訓告を市教委がすることは，何ら原告に対する不意打ちとはならない。
And there is no fact also that the Principal Akiyama told to the plaintiff that she could tell her students the content of the teachers' meeting.

So, "the Kunkoku of the case" is not a sudden attack on the plaintiff.

　（エ）　　以上のとおり，本件訓告は，本件授業が公立中学校教員と、して不適切な行為であることを理由としてなされたものであり，このことは，教育基本法１０条で規定する「不当な支配」に当たらない。したがって，本件訓告は，教育基本法１０条１項はもとより，憲法２３条，２６条，教育基本法１条に違反するものではない。
(e) Herein before, "the Kunkoku of the case" was done for the reason that "the lesson of the case" was inappropriate for a public school teacher and not unfair domination prescribed by the Fundamental of Education Law article 10.

Therefore "the Kunkoku of the case" wasn't against not only the Fundamental of Education Law article 10 section 1 but the constitution article 23,26 and Fundamental of Education Law article 1.

　　　　　なお，被告は，日の丸・君が代の問題を家庭科の授業で扱うことが不当である旨主張するものではない。
The defendant doesn't claim that it is illegal to teach the Hinomaru Kimigayo in home economics class.

また，本件訓告は，学習指導要領の個々の内容に反していることを理由とするものではなく，本件授業が全体として学習指導要領の趣旨を逸脱した授業であり，原告が授業で配布したプリントの内容が，学校及び職の信用を著しく傷つけたことを理由とするものである。
And the reason for "the admonition of the case" was that generally "the lesson of the case" varied from the intention of the Regulation of Guidance of Education, not for varied from individual contents of the Regulation of Guidance of Education, and content of "the handout of the case", was an extreme disgrace to schools and teachers.

　イ　市教委は，地方教育行政の組織及び運営に関する法律４３条１項の規定により，服務の監督に関する権限を有しているから，石川中学校の教諭である原告に対して訓告を発する権限を有する。
i The Hachiouji Board of Education is authorized to admonish the plaintiff, who is an Ishikawa Junior High School teacher, because of having the power to supervise teachers' duties, according to "The Law of Management and Organization for Local Government" article 43 section 1.

そして，訓告を発するかどうか，及びどのような内容の訓告を発するかは，市教委の裁量に属するというべきである。
And the Board of Education is authorized to admonish or not and the content of that admonishment.

　ウ　訓告は，職務上の義務に違反した場合などに指揮監督の権限を有するものが，当該職員の職務遂行の改善向上のために行う制裁的実質を伴わない注意を促す服務上の措置であり，懲戒処分としての戒告等の行政処分と異なり，硬訓告者は昇給延伸などの不利益を受けないものである。

u A"Kunkoku" is a measure done by an authority that has the power to supervise official's improvement of execution of duty as a warning.
A person who get a Kunkoku suffers no harm such as postponement of salary increase, and it differs from "Kaikoku", as a disciplinary measure of an administrative measure.

第３　当裁判所の判断
No3 Judgment of The Court

１　認定事実

　1, Finding Facts

争いのない事実等，証拠（甲２，６９，乙１４，原告本人，証人秋山　岸のほか，文中指摘のもの。ただし後記認定に反する部分を除く。）及び弁論の全趣旨によれば，以下の事実が認められる。
The follow facts were found in "meaning facts of a lack of conflict", evidence K2,69, O14, the plaintiff, witness Akiyama, Kishi, pointed out in the document, however there was a judgment against parts of these facts follow, hole meaning of pleading.

（1）本件授業以前の経緯
(1)The progress before "the lesson of the case"

　ア　平成１１年（以下，特に断りなく日付を示す場合は平成１１年の日付をいうものとする。）２月１０日，石川中学校において，職員会議が開催され，席上，教員によって組織された儀式的行事委員会から，卒業式の運営に関する案が提案された。

A In 1998, hereinafter the dates without year means 1998, February 10th, at Ishikawa junior high school, a teachers' meeting was held and a plan for the graduation ceremony was proposed by a ceremonial events committee organized by teachers.

秋山校長は，卒業式の開式のことばの後に，君が代の奏楽をすること，日の丸旗を校
旗と並べてスタンドに設置することを述べた。
　Principal Akiyama said that he would play the Kimigayo following the opening words of the graduation ceremony and placing the Hinomaru,and the school flag on stands in a line.

これに対し，原告は，反対意見を述べたところ，司会者は，「この件に関しては，別に会議の時間をとる。」と述べ，後日，継続して議論することとなった。
The plaintiff made a speech opposing the plan. The chairman said" It will take time to discuss this subject" and decided to continue the discussion later on.

イ　原告は，２月１５日午後，秋山校長及び佐藤教頭に対し，本件資料プリント（乙１）を手渡した。
I The plaintiff gave Principal Akiyama and Vice Principal Satou " the material handout of the case", Otu 1, on February 15th.

本件資料プリントには，学校教育における日の丸・君が代の変遷や，近隣諸国が日の丸をどう見ているかについて各種資料が掲載されているほか，「日の丸・君が代で国際化というけれど」「日の丸・君が代を通して狙うほんとうのところ」「石川中職員が積み上げてきたものを壊さないために」「法と命令に従うという校長のことばだが・・・」との標題のもとに，原告が学校教育において日の丸旗の掲揚等を行うことに反対している理由や，校長が原告と一緒に行動することを期待する内容が記載されていた。
　In "the material handout of the case" the following was written, transition of the Hinomaru Kimigayo in school education, materials about how Japanese neighbor countries see the Hinomaru, the reason why the plaintiff is opposing displaying the Hinomaru titled "They said Globalization by the Hinomaru Kimigayo, But." "Real aim of doing the Hinomaru Kimigayo" "To protect the heritage built up by the Ishikawa Junior High School's teachers" The principal said that he would follow the law and order.

　　原告は，秋山校長に渡した本件資料プリントをめくり，７枚目の本件プリント部分を開き，教員に関わる部分を除いて，君が代・日の丸について授業でとりあげることを述べ，秋山校長に対して意見を求めた。The plaintiff turned 7th page of "the material handout of the case" and told Principal Akiyama she would use it and tell about it in her class except issues concerning teachers and asked his opinion.

これに対し，秋山校長は，良識に沿った話をして欲しいとの発言をした。
Principal Akiyama responded that she should use in common sense.

ウ　この点，原告は，上記の会話において，秋山校長に対し，本件プリント部分を一部変更したものを生徒に配布すること，秋山校長が職員会議において国旗掲揚・国歌演奏を実施すると述べていることを生徒に話すことを言明し，秋山校長から，そのことについて了解を得たと主張し，それに沿う原告本人の供述部分がある。
U In that conversation, the plaintiff claim that she declared to Principal Akiyama that she would distribute "The handout of the case" by changing a part of it and saying that Principal Akiyama said in the teachers' meeting that he will display The Hinomaru play the Kimigayo to her student.
There is a statement of the plaintiff about those items.

　しかしながら，原告の上記供述部分についてはこれを裏付けるに足りる客観的な証拠はなく，また，秋山校長が示された本件資料プリントには，日の丸旗・君が代に関する学校教育の変遷等に関する資料が多数添付されていることや，後記（3）イ認定のとおり，秋山校長は，その後改めて原告が本件授業で使用した本件教材プリントの提出を原告に対して求めていることに照らすと，秋山校長が，イの会話当時，原告が行おうとしていた本件授業の具体的内容を十分に了解し，その上で本件授業を行うことを了承していたとは断定し難い。

However there isn't objective evidence to confirm the statement of the plaintiff.
And there were many materials about transition of school education about the Hinomaru Kimigayo in "the material handout of the case", Principal Akiyama asked the plaintiff later again submission of "the material handout of the case"
While thinking of them, It can't be concluded that Principal Akiayama had understood concretely about the content of " the lesson of the case",　which the plaintiff was going to do, and agreed to do " the lesson of the case" by such understanding.

そして，このことと，この点に関する証人秋山�fの供述を併せると，秋山校長が原告の授業内容を事前に了承していたとする原告の主張事実を認めることはできない。
By thinking about this and the statement about this of the witness Akiyama Noboru, Principal Akiyama, it can't be admitted the plaintiff's claim that Principal Akiyama had approved content of the plaintiff's lesson in advance.

（2）本件授業の内容等
（2） Contents of " the lesson of the case" etc.

　ア　本件教材プリントの上半分には，地下鉄サリン事件の実行犯の一人である被告人豊田の裁判に関する新聞記事が複写されており，記事には，「かつて『指示待ち』，今，教祖を『告発』」との見出しが付されている。
A On the upper half of " The handout of the case" a copy of a newspaper article, about the trial of a criminal defendant, Toyoda, who is one of culprits in the "Subway Sarin Case", was printed.
The article was entitled, " In the past waiting for an order. Now accused the founder."

　　　また，当該記事は，同人について，「自分で考えて行動しようとせず，周りや上からの指示に黙々と従うことで身の安全を保とうとして，結局自分を失ってしまう現代日本の人間像」の典型であると指摘し，同人の証言として，

「『やりたくないという気持ちはありました。しかし，指示された以上はやるしかない，と思いました』
『正しいとか，間違っているかと考えるのではなく，上からの指示は自分で判断するべきでない，無条件に従うべきもの，という思考が徹底していたのです』

『なぜとは考えなかった。なぜかを考えるより，指示があれば，それを遂行するのがすべてであり，その理由や背景は知るべきではなく，また知る必要もないという考えがありました』」，

「『指示を実行することで頭がいっぱい，真っ白の状態』で『被害者のことなど考える余裕がない』」

とした部分を引用したうえ，「なぜ私たちの社会は，このような『指示待ち人間』を育ててきたのだろう」，「程度の差はあれ同じような人物を，戦後の私たちの社会はせっせと拡大再生産しては来たのではなかったか。」，「自ら考えることまで放棄してしまっていたのである。」と述べている。

And the article pointed out the culprit that " He is a representative figure of today's Japanese who finally lose themselves by trying to keep their safety without act thinking themselves just obey orders from authorities or other around them " and quoted his witness that "

"I felt I didn't want to do that, but I thought I must do that after getting the order"

"I thought completely that we shouldn't judge an order from an authority, but just obey absolutely without think if it's right or wrong"

"I didn't think why. When I had an order, execution became everything . I thought that I shouldn't know the reason or the background and I don't need to know."

"I couldn't afford to think about the victims because to execute the order occupied my mind, my mind was blank."

and it was written "Why has our society brought up such people 'waiting for orders'" "there are still such people even if there is a difference of degree haven't we brought up our society since World War 2?" "We have given up even thinking ourselves"

イ　本件教材プリントの下半分には，下記のとおり，原告の手書の文章が記載されている。
I Articles, as follow, that handwriting of the plaintiff was written on the lower half of " The handout of the case" .

（ア）「豊田被告のことばをあなたはどう捉えますか。『卒業・入学式に『日の丸』を掲揚せよ，『君が代』を斉唱させよ』と，教委から指導された全国の校長のことばと同じに聞こえませんか。思考は同じ，だと思いませんか。」
(a) " How do you interpret the words of criminal defendant Toyoda? Don't you think those are same words as the Principals' words, all over Japan, people were ordered to display the Hinomaru and made to sing the Kimigayo in the school ceremonies by board of education? Don't you think that is the same way of thinking?"

（イ）　「確かに，『日の丸・君が代』だけで即，殺人には繋がらないでしょう。でも，オウム信者だって初めから殺人を目的にしていたわけではないかもしれませんし，また麻原が目的としていたとしても他は知らされていなかっただろうと思います。マインドコントロールが完了してから，本当の目的が明かされたのではないでしょうか。」
(i) " Actually, the Hinomaru and Kimigayo by themselves don't make a murder . But Aum believers also did not aim at murder in the beginning, even if Asahara aimed at it I guess other believers hadn't known . I guess the real aim was told to them after the mind control finished."

（ウ）　「恐いのは，『指示』や『指導』『命令』をする・される関係が成立すると（これがマインドコントロール），どんなに罪悪なことだって抵抗せずに，やがてすすんで実行してしまうことです。平時は絶対してはいけないと思うことでも，命令服従の関係が成立すると，やってしまうのが人間なのです。オウムに限らず，歴史をみれば，どの時代，どこの場所にも共通して見られることです。日本の侵略戦争でもしかり。」
(u) "The most terrible thing is that the relationship that do or be done, to instruct or conduct or order is established, this is mind control, and a person can't refuse to do even a criminal thing, and in course of time will actively do it themselves.
It is human to do things we would never think of doing when the relationship 'order and obedience' were established.

This has been commonly seen in every era and every place in history, not only with Aum. Japan's aggressive wars were the same."

（エ）　「現在だってそうです。厚生省・製薬会社ぐるみのエイズ隠し，大蔵省，金融，証券会社の不正などなど，命令服従の体質が起こしたことでしょう。」
(e) "Today it's the same. The constitution of 'order and obedience' caused the cover-up case of the AIDS conspiracy at the Ministry of Health and Welfare and a pharmaceutical company."

（オ）　"さて，『日の丸・君が代』の歴史や意味，また揚げたり歌ったりすることの『意義』を校長先生から説明もされぬまま，あなたたち子どもが見させられたり，歌わされたりすることを，あなたは，どう思いますか。卒業式の主人公はあなたがたです。」
(o) "By the way, what do you think that you children are made to see the Hinomaru or sing without explanation the history or meaning of ' Hinomaru Kimigayo' and the significance of the display or song by the Principal. 　　　
The heroes of the graduation ceremony are you."

ウ　　本件授業において，原告は，本件教材プリントを生徒に配布した上，「生きていく上で私が一番大切にしていること，そしてみんなにもこれからの生活の中で考えていって欲しいことを今日は話したい。」と前置きをしてから，本件教材プリントの新聞記事を読み，「あなたたちは良いことか悪いことかを考えずに，この記事のように，指示や命令に従ってしまった体験はなかっただろうか。」と問いかけた。

U In " the lesson of the case", the plaintiff distributed to her students " The handout of the case" and told them preliminarily " Today, I would like you to tell about my most important thing in my life and I hope you think about your life" and read the newspaper article of " The handout of the case" and asked that " Haven't you had an experience that you followed an order or indication without thinking if it was good or bad like this article"

また，原告は，生徒に対し，「私は学校や社会の中で判断を迫られることがあり，そのときはいいことか悪いことかをひとつひとつ考える。これは大変なことであり，時には勇気や決意が必要となることもあるが，私は自分の頭でよく考えておかしいと思ったことはやらず，正しいと思えば一人でも行動しなければと思っている。」などと話し，プリントの手書部分を読み上げた。さらに，原告は，「これは思想・信条の問題であって，どちらが良いとか悪いとかいう問題ではなく，考えずに指示に従う姿勢についていいことかどうかを考えよう。」と話した。
And the plaintiff told her student like that " I have been urged to make decisions in the school or the society. I have thought about which of them were good or bad one by one. It is very hard to do that. Sometimes, it needs a bravery or decision but I think that I have to do it even alone when I thought I was right I didn't to do it when it was wrong after enough thinking ." and read the part of handwritten on the handout.

In addition, the plaintiff told that "It is a matter of thinking and principle, not of which is right or wrong, Let's think that is it good to follow an order without thinking".

　　また，原告は，生徒から，卒業式に校長が日の丸を掲げるかどうかについて問われたことから，「校長先生は職員会議で，『日の丸を舞台に三脚で置く。君が代は奏楽で流す。』と言っています。」と伝えた。
And because of asking her students whether the principal will display the Hinomaru the plaintiff told that " The principal told in the teacher's meeting 'We will display the Hinomaru on the stage in a tripod. We will play the Kimigayo on tape'"

エ　２月１６日，本件授業を受けた女子生徒３名が昼休みに校長室に来て，秋山校長に対して「校長先生はどうして卒業式に君が代の演奏と日の丸の旗を設置するのかその理由を聞きたい」と尋ねた。これに対して，秋山校長は，学習指導要領に基づいて行う旨の話をした。
E On February 16th, 3 girl students who took " the lesson of the case" came the room of the principal and told the Principal " We want to know the reason why you are going to play the Kimigayo and display the Hinomaru in our graduation ceremony".
Principal Akiyama told the students that he will execute his plan depending on The Regulation of Guidance of Education.

（3）市教委による訓告に至る経緯

(3)The progress to the Kunkoku by the Hachiouji City Board of Education.

　ア　２月１８日開催の石川中学校職員会議において，卒業式の運営に関する案についての話し合いがされた。
A In the teacher's meeting of Ishikawa Junior high school, held on February 18th, a discussion of the plan of management of the graduation ceremony was held.

儀式的行事委員会が提出した原案は，日の丸旗はいかなる場所にもいかなる時間にも掲揚せず，また，君が代の演奏を行わない旨の内容であり，これが採決に付されたところ，原案に賛成する者２２名，反対する者２名であった。
The content of original plan presented by ceremonious event committee was that they wouldn't display the Hinomaru anytime anywhere and wouldn't play the Kimigayo. And the plan was voted, 22 person approved 2 person objected.

　　イ　２月１９日，市教委から，原告が授業中に配布した『日の丸・君が代』に反対する書面について問い合わせがあったことから，佐藤教頭は，秋山校長の指示を受けて，原告から本件教材プリント（甲２）の交付を受けた。
I On February 19 th, Vice -principal Satou had an inquiry from the City Board of Education about a paper which objected " the Hinomaru-Kimigayo" that was distributed by the plaintiff in her class.
So Vice-principal Satou had the delivery of " The handout of the case", evidence Kou 2, from the plaintiff

　　　佐藤教頭は，原告に対し，「いつ授業をしたのか。どのクラスに配ったのか。」，「学習指導要領にないのだから，止めるように伝えてくれと校長先生から言われた。」と述べた。
Vice-principal Satou told the plaintiff "When did you do the class? Which classes did you distribute it to?" " I was asked by the principal to tell you to stop the class, because it is not in The Regulation of Guidance of Education."

これに対し，原告は，「予め校長に話し，何も言われなかったのだから今になってこのように言われても納得できない。もうすべてのクラスで授業を終えました。」と述べた。
The plaintiff responded that "I can't help you out with anything now, because I told the principal about it in advance, and he said nothing. I already finished the lesson for all classes. "

　　ウ　２月２０日，秋山校長は，原告に対し，本件教材プリントを使用した授業はやめるように口頭で指示した。
U On February 20 th, Principal Aiyama ordered the plaintiff by word of mouth to stop her class using "The handout of the case".

これに対し，原告は，「すでに３年生の全組で授業を終えた。」，「本件教材プリントは事前に校長の判断を仰いだが，校長からの指摘はなく承認されたものである。」と話した。
The plaintiff responded that "I already finished all of the 3rd year classes " "I asked your judgment about ' The handout of the case' in advance , but received no directions. So, the class had been approved by you"

　　エ　３月6日，秋山校長は，ＰＴＡ運営委員会において，原告が授業で本件教材プリントを使用したことが市教委で問題とされていることを報告した。
E On March 6 th, Principal Akiyama reported in the management committee of PTA, (Parent and Teacher's Association), that the Board of Education had reported the problem the plaintiff created using "The hand out of the case" in her classes.

オ　３月８日，高木順一八王子市議会議員（以下「高木議員」という。）は，八王子市議会予算特別委員会において，原告の行った授業の内容に批判的な質問をした（甲７７）。
O On March 8 th, Junichi Takagi, member of the Hachiouji City Assembly, hereinafter The member Takagi, posed a critical question about the plaintiff's lesson in the special Budget Committee of the Hachiouji City Assembly, evidence kou 77.

　カ　３月１０日付け読売新聞は，本件授業に関し，「『全国の校長，上へただ服従』『日の丸・君が代問題』『中学教諭が批判の授業』『オウム信者になぞらえて』」といった見出しを付した記事及び「教諭自身が生徒をマインドコントロールしようとしたことにならないか。」との教育評論家の意見を掲載し（乙２），同月１１日付け産経新聞は，本件に関し，「校長はオウム信者と同じ」などの見出しを付した記事を掲載した（乙３）。
KA The Yomiuri Shinbun newspaper, dated March 10 th, carried an article about " the lesson of the case" titled "'Principals all over Japan just obey authority' 'Hinomaru-Kimigayo issue' 'A teacher of junior high school created critical lessons' 'comparing them with Aum believers' " and an opinion of an education critic "It wasn't that the teacher tried mind control on students ", evidence otu 2.
The Sankei Shinbun newspaper, dated on March 11 th, carried an article about the case entitled "Principals are same as Aum believers", evidence otu 3.

キ　市教委学校教育部付主幹の和田信行（以下「和田主幹」という。）は，３月１２日及び１５日に，原告に対する事情聴取を行った。
KI On March 12th and 15th, Nobuyuki Wada, the chief officer of the School Education Department of the City Board of Education, hereinafter Chief Officer Wada, held a hearing for the plaintiff.

ク　秋山校長は，卒業式前日の３月１８日，３年生の学年集会において，「三脚で日の丸を，奏楽で君が代を実施する。」と生徒に伝えた。
KU On March 18 th, the day before the graduation ceremony, Principal Akiyama told students at the assembly of Seniors "We will set up the Hinomaru on a tripod and listen to an instrumental of the Kimigayo played on tape"

その後，卒業式の実行委員の生徒たちが校長室を訪ね，秋山校長に対して，日の丸旗掲揚と君が代演奏に反対する意見を述べ，話し合いは午後８時ころまで続いた（甲７９）。
After that, students of graduation ceremony executive committee visited the Principal's room and told Principal Akiyama they were against displaying the Hinomaru and playing the Kimigayo.
This discussion continued until about 8 pm, evidence kou 8.

ケ　３月１９日の卒業式当日，秋山校長の指示により，卒業生が入場する前に君が代の演奏が流され，卒業生が入場する時点で校庭のポールに日の丸旗が掲げられた（甲７９）。
KE On March 19 th, the day of the graduation ceremony, the Kimigayo was played on tape before the graduating students' entrance and the Hinomaru was raised on the pole in schoolyard when the students' entered, evidence kou 79.
.

コ　秋山校長は，３月３１日付けで，本件授業に関する経過や自身の見解を記載した報告書（乙１３）を市教委宛に提出した。
KO Principal Akiyama submitted a report, dated March 18 th, which mentioned the progress of "the lesson of the case" and his opinion to the City Board of Education.

市教委は，４月から６月にかけて，都教委に対し，原告に対する懲戒処分を求めたが，都教委は，７月ころ，懲戒処分には至らない旨の判断をした。
From April to June, City Board of Education called on the Metropolitan Board of Education to take disciplinary measures against the plaintiff. But the Metropolitan Board of Education judged the disciplinary measures weren't necessary , about July.

都教委は，その判断の理由の一つとして，和田主幹に対し，秋山校長による原告に対する適切な職務命令がなかったため，その職務命令違反の点を問えないためである旨告げた（証人和田信行）。
The Metropolitan Board of Education told Chief Officer Wada one of the reasons for the judgment that they couldn't accuse the plaintiff of a violation against an official order, was because there wasn't an appropriate official order to the plaintiff by Principal Akiyama, witness Nobuyuki Wada.

サ　本件訓告後，和田主幹は，朝日新聞の取材に対して，「卒業式などの国旗掲揚・国歌斉唱は学習指導要領に明記されている。考えましょう，と生徒に呼びかけるのは指導要領に異を唱えることで，受け入れられない。」と答えた（甲３５）。
SA After "Kunkoku of the case", Chief Officer Wada responded in an interview with the Asahi Shinbun newspaper "It is written clearly in The Regulation of Guidance of Education to display the Hinomaru and to play the Kimigayo in graduation ceremonies. It can't be tolerated for a teacher to tell students 'Let's think about that' because it means objecting to The Regulation of Guidance of Education", evidence kou 35.

２　検討
2 Examination

（1）地方公務員法３３条は，「職員は，その職の信用を傷つけ，又は職員の職全体の不名誉となるような行為をしてはならない。」と規定しているところ，市町村の教育委員会は，市町村立学校の教職員のうちいわゆる県費負担職員に同条に該当する行為があった場合，地方教育行政の組織及び運営に関する法律３７条，４３条1項に基づき，その服務監督権限を行使して文書による訓告を行うことができると解される。
(1)The Law of Local Public Officers article 33 provides that "Officer must not act to damage the confidence of officers or dishonor the organization as a whole". So, Board of Education of a city, town or village can send a document of Knkoku by document when a teacher of public school acts in violation of this article according to The Law of Organization and Management of Local Administration of Education article 37, article 43 section 1.

そして，本件訓告が，前記法条に基づいてされたことは，前記認定のところから明らかである。
And it is clear that "Kunkoku of the case" was done depend on aforementioned law by aforementioned Finding Facts.

　　　もっとも，教育基本法１０条１項が，「教育は，不当な支配に服することなく，国民全体に対し直接に責任を負って行われるべきものである。」と規定していることに照らし，市町村の教育委員会に認められる上記の服務監督権限の行使に関する裁量は，教育に対する不当な支配とはならない範囲において認められる趣旨のものと解すべきである。
However, the above discretion of exercise the authority to supervise the service of Board of Education of a city, town or village should be admitted within a limit which is not unjust domination of education, according to Fundamental of Education Law article 10 section 1 which provides that "Education must be done without obeying unjust domination and with direct responsibility to the whole nation"

（2）本件授業に先だって行われた石川中学校の職員会議においては，学習指導要領に則り，卒業式では日の丸旗を掲揚し君が代を演奏しようとしていた校長と，それに反対する者との意見が対立し，本件授業の当時にはその運営について決着がついていない段階であったこと，
（2）In the teachers' meeting, which was held before the "lesson of the case" there was a conflict between the Principal who was going to display the Hinomaru and play the Kimigayo during the graduation ceremony and teachers who opposed that. The conflict still hadn't been settled when "the lesson of the case" was created.

原告は卒業式における日の丸旗掲揚・君が代演奏には反対する意見を有しており，校長に対して翻意を求めていたこと，
The plaintiff had an objection about displaying the Hinomaru and playing the Kimigayo during the graduation ceremony and asked the Principal to change his mind.

そのような状況のもと，原告は，本件授業において，本件教材プリントを使用して，教育委員会から日の丸旗の掲揚と君が代の斉唱を指導されている全国の校長は，地下鉄サリン事件という重大な犯罪行為を実行したオウム真理教の信者と同じ思考をしており，指示・指導・命令をする・される関係のもとでどんな罪悪なことでも抵抗をせずにすすんで実行してしまうこととなる旨の論評を行い，そのことを記載したプリントを生徒に配布したこと，
It was such a situation, the plaintiff criticized that Principals all over Japan who conducted displays of the Hinomaru and playing the Kimigayo have same thinking as Aum believers who committed horrible crimes, the subway Sarin case, people will execute any crime without willingly opposing the relationship and will carry out any direct orders.
And the plaintiff distributed the handout which mentioned that to her students.

さらに，原告は，当該プリントの配布に加えて，秋山校長が職員会議において卒業式では国旗掲揚と国歌演奏を行う旨発言していることを述べたこと，以上の事実は前記１で認定したとおりである。
Moreover, adding the distribution of the handout, the plaintiff told students that Principal Akiyama said in the teachers' meeting he would display the Hinomaru and play the Kimigayo .

Facts hereinbefore are certified in above-mentioned 1.

また，前記第２の1（5）で認定したとおり，本件訓告は，原告が上記のプリントを生徒に配布し，職員会議の内容を示し，二校長の学校運営方針を批判するに等しい授業を行っ　た点を訓告の理由としている。
And as certified in above-mentioned No2, 1 (5) the reason of "Kunkoku of the case" was that the plaintiff distributed "the handout of the case" and told her students content of a teachers' meeting and her lesson was the same as criticizing the school management principles of the Principal.

（3）ところで，原告は，教育委員会が個々の教師の個々の授業内容に直接介入してその当否を判断し，授業内容を理由として処分をすることは，それ自体，教育基本法１０条1項が禁止する「不当な支配」に該当する旨主張する。
(3) By the way, the plaintiff claims that to Board of Education intervened directly in teachers on individual content of lessons and judged it right or wrong and punish them due to the content of the class is veritable to " unjust domination" which is prohibited by the Fundamental of Education Law.

また，原告は，本件授業の目的は，生徒たちに，自分の頭で考えて行動する人間になって欲しい旨を伝えることにあり，それを禁止する措置は，自主的精神の育成を期することを定めた教育基本法１条に反するほか，教諭の教育の自主性を尊重する旨を定めた学校教育法２８条６項，４０条にも反する旨主張する。

And the plaintiff claims that "The aim of "the lesson of the case" was to tell students that the plaintiff wanted them to become a person who act on individual thinking. So a measure which prohibit it is against Fundamental of Education Law article 1, which asks to cultivate independent spirit, and against School Education Law article 28 section 6 article 40 which provide respect for the independency of education of teachers'"

　　そこで検討するに，教育基本法は，教育に対する不当な支配を排する趣旨の規定（１０条１項）に続けて，
「教育行政は，この自覚のもとに，教育の目的を遂行するのに必要な諸条件の整備確立を目標として行われなければならない。」

と規定し（同条２項）教育に対する教育行政の関与を認めていることに照らすと，

Then I investigated, thinking that the Fundamental of Education Law allows Administration of education intervene in education, providing that "Administration of education must be executed, under consciously with with the aim to establish fixed and various conditions for accomplishment of the purpose of education", article section 2 , following that Law's article 10 section 1 which is the substance of the regulation of prohibition of unjust domination for education.

同法１０条１項は，教育行政機関が教育の方法に対して何らかの制約を課することを全面的に禁止する趣旨ではなく，教育の目的を遂行するために必要かつ合理的と認められる措置であれば，それを許容する趣旨であると解されるところであり（最高裁昭和４３年（あ）第１６１４号・昭和５１年５月２１日 大法廷判決・刑集第３０巻５号６１５頁参照），

the substance of the Law the article 10 section 1 should be interpreted that it is not to wholly prohibit Administration of education to impose some restriction for a way of education, but permits it if it is a measure to accomplish the purpose of education if it is indispensable and reasonable.
(refer from the Supreme Court dated 1968 (a) No 1614, The Collection of Judicial Decision of the court volume 30 No 5 page 615, dated May 21 1976 . )

このことは，自主的精神の育成について定めた同法１条や，教諭が教育をつかさどることを定めた学校教育法２８条６項，４０条についても同様であると解される。
This matter is interpreted as same as on the law article 1 which provides for cultivation of independent spirit and the School Education Law article 28 section 5 ,article 40 which covers that teacher administered education.

したがって，教育行政機関が教師の授業の方法に是正すべき部分があるとして服務監督上の措置をとることも，上記の趣旨に反しない限りにおいて許されるというべきである。
Therefore it should be admitted that a organization of administration of education measure the supervise of service point out that there is a part that must be correct in a teacher's lesson in a limited way not violating the meaning of the above .

しかるところ，前記1（1）(2）で認定したところによれば，原告は，卒業式における日の丸旗掲揚と君が代演奏に強く反対する意見を有し，その思想信条において対立する立場にある全国の校長について，重大な犯罪を犯した宗教的組織の一員と同じようにマインドコントロールされた状態下にある者であるといわんばかりの内容の教材を作成し，これを中等教育課程に就学中の生徒に配布したものであるところ，

校長らを犯罪者に比肩するこのような本件授業の方法が，原告の目指した自主性の尊重という教育の目的を達成するのに通常必要となる手段であると評価することは到底困難である。

Therefore, according to above-mentioned 1 (1)(2), the plaintiff has had a strong opinion opposing the display of Hinomaru and playing of Kimigayo at the graduation ceremony　and made a handout that
Principals all over the country, who's principle are against hers, are mind-controlled the same as believers of a religion which committed serious crimes, distributed it to her junior high school students.

The method of " the lesson of the case" which compared Principals to criminals can't be assessed that it is a way which is normally necessary to achieve the purpose of education with respect to independence the plaintiff aimed.

そして，原告が，上記のような教育手段を採用したことに関して教育行政から事後的に訓告という措置を受けたとしても，他の教育手段によって原告の目指す教育を行うことは何ら妨げられるものではない。

And even though the plaintiff was given a measure of admonition, Kunkoku, by the educational administration for she adopted method of education abovementioned, it doesn't prevent the plaintiff from creating education with her purpose another way .

また，本件授業に対して市教委がした本件訓告は，地方公務員法に基づく懲戒とは異なり，被訓告者である原告に対して直ちに法的な不利益をもたらさない指導監督上の措置であることが明らかである。
And it is clear that "Kunkoku of the case", enforced by City Board of Education is against " the lesson of the case", doesn't make legal disadvantage directly to the plaintiff who was admonished, and differs from the kind of admonition defined by The Law of Local Government Employees .

　　　　これらの事情を併せ考慮すると，市教委が上記のような原告の授業方法に是正すべき点があるとして服務監督上の措置として本件訓告を行うことは，不相当なものとは言い難く，本件訓告は教育基本法１０条１項の趣旨に反するということはできないし，また，本件訓告により原告指摘の他の規定の趣旨が損なわれたということもできない。

By consideration of those reasons, it is not unsuitable that City Board of Education admonished through the "Kunkoku of the case" because there were parts should be corrected in the plaintiff's way of giving that lesson.
So "Kunkoku of the case"　does not　violate the meaning of section 10 article 1 of the Fundamental Law of Education, and other regulations that the plaintiff pointed out.

　　　　よって，原告の上記主張は採用できず，

本件訓告は，教育に対する不当な支配を排除することを規定した教育基本法１０条１項や，原告指摘の他の規定の存在を考慮したとしても，

市教委に認められた服務監督権限の行使に関する裁量を逸脱するものと解することはできないというべきである。

Therefore the plaintiff's claim that above-mentioned can't be adopted.

"Kunkoku of the case" doesn't deviate from the exercise of discretion which admitted to the City Board of Education for authority of supervision to public service, even if taking into account for the section 10 article 1 of the Fundamental Law of Education which regulate to exclude an unfair direction for education, or another regulation that the plaintiff pointed out.

（4）また，原告は，学校行事に関する職員会議の内容を生徒に告げることは何ら違法ではない旨主張する。
(4) The plaintiff clams that it isn't illegal whatever to inform students contents of the teacher's meeting about a school event.

　　　　しかしながら，原告は，全国の校長の思考のあり方を批判する内容を有する本件教材プリントに基づく指導と同一の機会において，秋山校長の職員会議における発言を取り上げたことは前記1（2）認定のとおりであるから，

市教委が，本件授業内容を構成する一要素としてこの点を考慮したとしても，市教委が服務監督権限に関する裁量権を行使するに当たって考慮すべきでない事項を考慮して本件訓告をしたとまでは言い難い。
However it was certificated above-mentioned in (1)(2) that the plaintiff mentioned the proposal of Principal Akiyama in the teacher's meeting in same time of the class using " The handout of the case"
which criticized the way Principals in the whole country think.

So it can't be said that the City Board of Education admonished "Kunkoku of the case" by considered a matter which should not be considered as exercise authority of supervision to public service, even thou considered that above -mentioned is one factor that composes " the lesson of the case"

そうすると，本件訓告は，市教委に認められた裁量を逸脱したものとして違法であるということはできない。
Then, "Kunkoku of the case" can't be said to be illegal and falls outside of the pervue of the discretion that is permitted to the City Board of Education.

（5）　さらに，原告は，秋山校長から，本件授業の内容及び職員会議の内容を生徒に示すことについて，事前に了承を得ていたのに，後になって市教委が本件訓告をすることは，原告に対する不意打ちであり，手続の適正を欠く旨主張する。
（5）Moreover, the plaintiff clams that it is a surprise attack against the plaintiff and irrelevant of the procedure to the City Board of Education to admonish through the "Kunkoku of the case" at a later time , because of the plaintiff was given approval by Principal Akiyama about to showing the students the content of " the lesson of the case" and the content of the teacher's meeting.

　　　しかしながら，秋山校長においては，原告が行う予定であった本件授業の具体的内容を十分に了解していたと認めることができないことは，前記1（1）ウで判断したとおりである。
However , as judged in the above-mentioned 1(1)u, it can't recognize that Principal Akiyama had fully consented about concrete contents of "the lesson of the case" which the plaintiff planned.

もっとも，原告は，秋山校長に対して，予め本件資料プリントを交付し，授業で卒業式における日の丸・君が代の問題を取り上げることについて言及していたのであるから，秋山校長には，原告が行う授業内容について何らかの指導を行う契機があったということはできる。
Though, it can say that Principal Akiyama had an opportunity to direct something for the content of the lesson which the plaintiff was going to do, because the plaintiff submitted to Principal Akiyama " the handout of the case" in advance and told him that she would take up the Hinomaru-Kimigayo in the graduation exercises issue in her class.

　　しかしながら，前記認定の事実関係のもとでは，秋山校長が事前の指導をしなかったという不作為が，後になされた市教委による本件訓告について手続的な違法をもたらす程度のものであるとまで解することはできないことは，前記（3）で説示したところから明らかであって，原告の主張は採用できない。
However, as explained in above (3), it clearly can't be said that the omission of Principal Akiyama that he didn't direct in advance caused the illegality of procedure for "Kunkoku of the case" by City Board of Education later on.
So the charges of the plaintiff can't be supported.

(6）また，原告は，本件訓告は一部の政治勢力と結託して原告を教育現場から排除しようとする目的に基づいてなされたものであり，市教委は裁量権を逸脱濫用したものであると主張する。

（6)And, the plaintiff clams that "Kunkoku of the case" was enforced for exclude the plaintiff from the field of the education in conspiracy with some political group, so the City Board of Education deviated

　　　　しかしながら，前記（3）で説示したとおり，
However, as explained above(3),

本件訓告は，教育基本法10条1項に定める不当な支配に該当しないと解すべきことに加え，
"Kunkoku of the case" should be interpreted that it doesn't correspond to unfair direction which is provided against by the Fundamental Law of Education article 10 section 1,

原告に対してされた本件訓告は，地方公務員法上の懲戒ではなく，服務監督上の措置にとどまっており，

"Kunkoku of the case", for the plaintiff, is not a admonition that provided in the Law of Local Government Employee, but limited in measure as supervision of public service,

その不利益は原告所論のように大きなものではなく，
The disadvantage is not as serious as the plaintiff claims,

原告を教育現場から排除するような内容のものでもないことや，
its content is not such as to exclude the plaintiff from the field of education,

校長らを犯罪者に比肩する内容の本件授業に対する服務監督上の措置として均衡を失するものとは言い難いことを考慮すれば，
does not lose equilibrium as a measure with consideration that " the lesson of the case" in which Principals are equated to criminals,

本件訓告は原告主張のような目的に基づいてなされたものと断じることはできず，
"Kunkoku of the case" can't be judged that it was executed for a purpose that the plaintiff's claim,

市教委に認められた服務監督権限の行使に関する裁量を逸脱し又はこれを濫用したものと判断することはできない。
"Kunkoku of the case"　can't be judged as a measure with deviation or misappropriation of discretion of exercise of jurisdiction of supervision of public service for the City Board of Education.

　　したがって，本件訓告が違法であるとする原告の主張は採用できない。
Therefore the claim of the plaintiff that " Kunokoku of the case" is illegal is not true.

3　 結論
3 conclusion

　 　 以上によれば，その余の点について判断するまでもなく，原告の本訴請求は理由がないから，これを棄却する。
By above mentioned, not necessary to judge for another matters, we reject the plaintiff's claims of this case because of there are insufficient reasons.

　　　　東京地方裁判所八王子支部民事第3部

Tokyo District Court Hachiouji Branch civil affairs No 3 department

裁判長裁判官　　　　園　部　秀　穂
　　 Presiding Judge Hideho Okabe
　　　　　　　　　　
　　　　　　　　　　　裁判官　　　　谷　口　　　豊
Judge Yutaka Taniguchi

　　　　　　　　　　　裁判官　　　　山　田　直　之
Judge Naoyuki Yamada