This case arose when the defendant, a victim of deepfake material, learned that her photographs had been misused in pornography and posted on SNS about a suspected individual as a way of responding. The problem was that although the post was later switched to private, a settings error made it public again, and she ended up on trial for Defamation. The post contained specific details of the harm and warning-style language, which the Prosecution regarded as showing a 'purpose of defamation.'

In this case, I emphasized above all that the defendant's act was a carefully considered measure taken 'in the public interest.' The defendant had responded cautiously in order to prevent secondary harm, and the essence of the post lay in warning others and sharing the fact of the harm, not in maliciously attacking a specific person. The court accepted this and acquitted the defendant, holding that 'there was no purpose of defamation, and the public-interest nature is recognized.' When a victim is instead cast as a perpetrator, the injustice becomes a double suffering. The risk of wrongful accusation can be imposed on a victim at any time.