A casual remark made at a company dinner led to a criminal trial. The defendant, having seen the victim and a branch manager, H, holding hands, merely said in jest, 'They probably went to a motel,' but the person who heard it misunderstood it as a claim of 'having seen it directly' and filed a Defamation complaint. The problem was that the victim's statements then began to shift. In the initial investigation it was 'he said he saw it,' but in court it became 'he never said he saw it for certain, he just said it in passing.' In the end, the consistency and credibility of the statements came into doubt and the case entered a new phase.

In this case, I focused my analysis on the 'range of possible interpretations of the words' and the 'shifting of the statements.' I proved that the defendant had no intent to intrude on the other party's private life, that he had merely repeated, as a joke, rumors circulating around him, and that in the atmosphere at the time everyone had simply laughed it off. In particular, the victim's account gradually changed and its core became blurred, and the statement that 'I never said I saw it for certain,' maintained from the investigation stage through the courtroom, became the decisive turning point. The court held that it was difficult to find that the defendant had directly spread false facts and acquitted him. The risk of a wrongful accusation sometimes begins with a single remark. Standing on the side of those who have been wronged, I will fight to the end.