restore their honor, and reveal the fiction of the so-called 'Nanjing Massacre'

The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Defamation Trial
Former Infantry 20th Union Corps 3rd Company 1st Squad Commander's superior, who was told by Azuma's book that he had killed a Chinese in a mailbag, on April 15, 1993,
He filed a lawsuit against the Tokyo District Court for Shiro Azuma, Masaki Shimozato, and Aoki Shoten.
The trial is also called the Azuma trial.
The plaintiff also consulted with Yoshiaki Itakura, and a 'meeting to correct the fiction of the Nanjing case' was set up at the lawyer's office, Katsuhiko Takaike.
Using this lawsuit as a breakthrough, Itakura said he wanted to prove its falsehood in the atrocities of the 20th Infantry Corps, restore their honor, and reveal the fiction of the so-called 'Nanjing Massacre'.
Contents of judgment
Tokyo District Court Decision
In April 1996, the Tokyo District Court's first trial verdict found the diary description to be fictitious and ordered Azuma and three others to pay 500,000 yen.
The defendant is an appeal.
1 In the trial decision,
...
The postal bag case was judged to be unnatural, there was no objective evidence, and it was not enough to justify it, and it was decided that it was 'dangerous for the practitioner and not practicable.'
The plaintiff testified in a court, 'I have never killed a person in China. I have never raped. I have never seen any pillage or corpse.'
The Azuma defense team formed 'Meeting to support Shiro Azuma's Nanjing trial,' 
And to prove that it did not cause defamation, it was confirmed that the postal bag incident was not unnatural and a grenade reproduction experiment in Nanjing Experiments such as putting the bag in a bag and measuring the depth of sinking was conducted. Still, the results of these experiments and field surveys were also denied by the judgment.
High Court (Appeal Tribunal) Judgment
The first trial of the appeals trial started on September 26, 1996. It was the dismissal of the appeal on December 22, 1998, at the Tokyo High Court No. 7 Civil Division (presiding judge Okuyama Koetsu, Judges Masami Sugiyama, Yoichi Sato). It was sentenced.
It was at the time of the appeal, the actual 'diary' that Azuma wrote before the war was submitted to the court.
But the actual 'diary' was not submitted for the battle related to Nanjing.
Azuma claimed that he had written that part of the 'diary' in the 'pocket notebook' at that time and copied it a few years later, but the 'pocket notebook' was not submitted to the court.
Besides, Azuma alleged that he lent out to an exhibition but did not return it, which was denied by the exhibition's director.
Azuma argued that the diary was an 'accurate record' of the memos and other information from 1940 to March 1944.
However, the decision also questioned whether the Azuma diary was written before the war, and it may have been added after the war, so it was decided that 'Azuma's statement is difficult to adopt entirely.'
Besides, the high court judged that 'the original pocketbook, which is the original document before March 1938, does not exist,' and said, 'Appellant Azuma was unable to reproduce and make an accurate statement. The reason is that he had not witnessed this act; that is, it had to infer that this act had not been executed."
In the trial, many of the entries in the diary were also pointed out to be 'questioning,' saying that 'there is no evidence to support the main part and it cannot be admitted to be true.'
Omission
This article continues.