To smear a competitor of the bakery he operated, the defendant placed a live rat inside an uncooked bakery product, disguised it as the competitor's product, and posted photos of it on an online community. He then even volunteered for media interviews, spreading the false claim that 'a rat came out of a product from ○○ Bakery.' As a result, the victim business suffered serious harm, including a sharp drop in sales, loss of customer trust, and damage to its brand.

Our client's brand image had been destroyed by a fabricated incident with no basis in fact, and the business suffered severe harm, unable to operate normally for several months. Early on, our client hesitated to file a complaint, wondering 'what if there really was a rat?' and worried that a response might backfire, but I urged prompt action. On the basis of objective evidence such as internal hygiene inspection records, CCTV footage, and process flow charts, I logically established that a rat could not possibly have entered the company's products, and by analyzing whether the timing and content of the defendant's posts and media interviews matched, I proved his intent and deception. This led the court to accept that the offense was premeditated, and ultimately secured a prison sentence. When public trust is at stake, an immediate yet precise legal response is critical, and in such situations I am confident in a strategy that delivers both genuine recovery for the victim and strong punishment for the perpetrator.