The defendant and the victim had lived together for a period of time, and the victim filed a complaint alleging that the defendant had raped her on multiple occasions, accompanied by assault and threats. The incidents were said to have occurred at the defendant's residence and in his car, and the victim described the alleged harm to investigators in detail while reporting severe psychological suffering. During the investigation and trial, however, her statements changed several times as to chronology, location, and the number and manner of the alleged rapes, and it was notable that the initial complaint had not included a rape allegation at all. Citing problems with the consistency and plausibility of the statements, the court rejected the victim's allegations and acquitted the defendant.

At the initial consultation the defendant firmly denied the charges, and I thoroughly reconstructed the facts while analyzing the victim's entire account without preconceptions. The key was to structurally undermine the credibility of the victim's statements. I focused on the fact that, even immediately after the time she claimed to have been raped, she went out with the defendant, accompanied him to family events, and paid for expenses, behavior entirely unlike that of a typical victim. After a meticulous review of the investigation record, I compared and analyzed when and how her statements changed, and in court pinpointed the contradictions between them in a persuasive rebuttal. The court acquitted the defendant, finding that 'the core elements of the statements changed repeatedly, and the circumstances in which the rape allegation arose are likewise unnatural.' I believe that even in sex crime cases, guaranteeing the right of defense for a wrongly accused defendant is absolutely essential, and I will never stop advocating to protect the truth.