According to the Japan Broadcasting Association, the plaintiff appointed an attorney to appeal to the Supreme Court of Japan on January 24 against the case that three senior executives of the former management of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) were charged with the crime of causing death due to negligence in the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Earlier, on January 18, the Tokyo High Court had just made a second trial judgment on the case, maintaining the result of the first trial judgment and ruling that three former executives were not guilty. The Supreme Court of Japan will make a final decision on whether the criminal responsibility of the three defendants in the case can be determined. According to the Supreme Court of Appeal of the Plaintiff and Japanese media reports, at about 14:00 local time on January 18, the Tokyo High Court announced the result of the second instance in the case of whether three former senior executives of Tokyo Electric Power Company were responsible for the criminal liability of causing death due to negligence in the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The court of second instance upheld the judgment of first instance and found that the crime of death caused by negligence of the three defendants was not established. On the same day, the representative of the plaintiff held the slogan of "improper judgment" at the entrance of the Tokyo High Court and expressed dissatisfaction with the judgment result. On January 24, the lawyer acting for the plaintiff formally filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Japan, and whether the three former executives of TEPCO had criminal responsibility will be finally heard in the Supreme Court of Japan. The three defendants of TEPCO were the former chairman of TEPCO, Senmata Hengjiu (82 years old), the former vice president in charge of nuclear power business, Takeichiro (76 years old), and the former vice president, Taketo Rong (72 years old). The three defendants were charged with failing to take necessary preventive measures when they were aware of the possibility of a tsunami, which led to the forced refuge and death of 44 inpatients at the Shuangye Hospital in Ohumamacho, Fukushima Prefecture after the nuclear accident, and committed the crime of causing death through negligence, and were compulsorily prosecuted in February 2016. In September 2019, the Tokyo District Court ruled in the first instance that three defendants were not guilty on the grounds of "no specific basis for tsunami prediction" and "employees have no legal obligation to stop the operation of the nuclear power plant". On March 11, 2011, a strong earthquake occurred in the northeastern waters of Japan and triggered a tsunami. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant operated by Tepco suffered a catastrophic radiation leak. Four nuclear reactors were damaged to varying degrees, and three of them suffered core meltdown. After the tsunami and the nuclear accident, people around the accident area, including the inpatients in Shuangye Hospital, were forced to take refuge. The plaintiff believed that the occurrence of the nuclear accident directly led to the death of the inpatients in the asylum. The former senior executives of TEPCO were responsible for the death of the inpatients, claimed that the three defendants committed the crime of causing death through negligence, and demanded that the three defendants be sentenced to five years' imprisonment. In this regard, the defendant insisted that he could not foresee the disaster risk and insisted that he was innocent. The judicial decision was inconsistent. According to Japanese media reports, the most controversial point in the case was whether the three defendants could foresee the tsunami risk and take appropriate security measures. According to the plaintiffs' complaint, the Japanese state agency issued the Long-term Assessment on the risk of earthquake and tsunami in the sea area of Fukushima Prefecture in 2002, predicting that the south side of the plant area of Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant may be hit by a tsunami of up to 15.7 meters, while Tepco did not take any additional breakwater or other preventive measures. In this regard, the defendant argued that the assessment at that time was not reliable