In this case, the defendant was branded an arsonist over the cause of a fire that broke out in a pile of rubbish behind a shopping arcade, and the matter went all the way to criminal trial. Before the fire, CCTV captured what appeared to be someone smoking, but the footage was blurry and it was unclear whether the cigarette had actually caused ignition. The scene was a place frequently accessed by third parties, and the time at which the fire started was also far shorter than a typical ignition time.

Combining the lack of clarity in the CCTV footage, the structural characteristics of the scene, and the abnormally short time before ignition, I built the argument that 'there is suspicion, but proof is lacking.' In particular, I strongly criticized the investigative approach in which the Prosecution pressed only the defendant while excluding the possibility of third-party involvement. The court acquitted the defendant, holding that 'guilt cannot be found on suspicion alone.' Injustice begins with a single small suspicion. The risk of wrongful accusation arises at the very moment that suspicion hardens into certainty.