在日本，礼物什么时候成为贿赂？

The 1796 case of Shichibei of Mikage village, in an Osaka magistrate's submission and the accompanying review, transcribed in 代田清嗣, 「徳川幕府刑法における贈収賄罪」, 名城法学 68, no. 2 (2018), printed pp. 87–86 (PDF pp. 10–11). The entries distinguish the proposed banishment, the explanation concerning discourtesy, the later gratuity, and the approved fine. The account follows this published transcription and its immediate discussion, not an independently examined manuscript. The cash-account unit is not converted into modern purchasing power. Article.

National Diet Library, catalogue and explanatory description of 建武式目, call number WA16-76, manuscript copied by Kiyohara Edakata in 1563. The description identifies the 1336 advice associated with Nikaidō Dōshō, also called Zeen, and the distinction between its conventional treatment as a promulgated law and its possible character as an advisory memorandum. The date of the catalogued copy is not the date of composition. Catalogue.

Kenmu Shikimoku (1336), provisions beginning 「固可被止賄賂事」 and 「殿中付內外可被返諸方進物事」, read with the provisions on influential intercession, propriety, and the complaints of the poor. Original-language transcription based on 塙保己一, ed., 群書類従, vol. 15 (Tokyo: Keizai Zasshisha, 1894). The article paraphrases prescriptions; it does not infer a documented execution or universal compliance from the recommended punishments. Text.

Edo-Tokyo Museum Library, reference response 「大岡越前守忠相の官職名『越前守』などにみられる『○○守』という名称はどのようにつけられたのか？」, section describing investiture procedures and the accompanying 「贈答儀礼」, drawing on 藤田覚, 「近世武家官位の叙任手続きについて」, 日本歴史 586 (March 1997). The museum's explanation supplies the ceremonial sequence, not a legal finding about every payment surrounding an appointment. Reference response.

Tsunoda Ōgaku nikki, entries for the fifth and eighth days of the tenth month, 1842, and the twenty-eighth day of the eleventh month, 1846, quoted in Fujinomiya City Local History Museum, 「『角田桜岳日記』を読む1—進物にされた納豆と山葵—」, sections 「納豆」 and 「山葵」. Month-and-day references are those of the original Japanese calendar. The diary excerpts establish food gifts, not the purchase of a decision or exemption from gift restrictions. The museum's conjecture about the precise kind of fermented soybean is not needed for the argument. Excerpts and commentary.

Kujikata Osadamegaki, lower volume, additional provision 26, 「賄賂差出候もの御仕置之事」, settled in Kanpō 3 (1743), reproduced in 代田, printed p. 93 (PDF p. 4). The proviso concerns the intended recipient returning the bribe and reporting it; its alternative sanctions concern the giver and intermediary. “Light banishment” names a penal category and is not a judgment that the punishment was inconsequential. Transcription.

The 1788 Fushimi case concerning Jirōemon of Sadōya, including the punishment memorandum beginning 「右御仕置附」, reproduced in 代田, printed p. 79 (PDF p. 18). The prior promise concerning a town officer's retirement and a separate payment to the Fushimi magistrate appear within the same case but are not treated here as one transaction. The memorandum's consideration of official encouragement does not amount to approval of the promise. Transcription and discussion.

The 1818 case involving Shibata Unai and other staff under Shimada Tatewaki, reproduced in 代田, printed pp. 91–90 (PDF pp. 6–7), section 「触書と社会通念」. The initial submission's reliance on the absence of a circulated prohibition is expressly distinguished from the reviewing officials' rejection of that reasoning. The source is a selected published case transcription, not a complete survey of all gifts to Tokugawa officials. Text.

Penal Code, Law no. 45 of 24 April 1907, original promulgated Article 197, in Nagoya University, Japan Historical Institutional System database. The discussion concerns the historical wording, including the separate aggravation for an improper act or omission; it is not an account of present Japanese criminal law. Original statute.

同一部1907年法律，第197条第2款与第198条。没收、追缴价额、行贿或许诺，以及主动投案，是不同规定。仅凭法条，未能确定起诉的频率或成效。