[Issues and the Court's findings and judgments]

Point of dispute 1: The content of the facts identified in the tweet and the degree of social evaluation
Together with the image of the official gazette notice attached to the tweet, this is deemed to indicate the fact that the plaintiff is a foreigner whose real name is Ashi Akinan and whose alias is "Ito Shiori," and who received a decision to commence bankruptcy proceedings at the Tokyo District Court on September 8, 2010.

Given that the plaintiff is an individual who has revealed her real name, "Ito Shiori," and is speaking out to society about her sexual assault, that the hashtag "#CoercedSexualActs" is used in the context of sexual assault, and that prior to the Tweet in question, the defendant had named the plaintiff multiple times and referred to separate sexual assaults and separate defamation lawsuits, it is clear that, based on the ordinary attention and reading habits of the average reader, the Tweet in question specifically names the plaintiff among the people named "Ito Shiori."

The tweets, which indicate the fact that the plaintiff had received a decision to commence bankruptcy proceedings, give the impression that the plaintiff was in a state of heavy debt and financial ruin, which led to the plaintiff being subject to the decision to commence bankruptcy proceedings, and are therefore deemed to have lowered the plaintiff's social standing.

The facts alleged are false and the defendant has not asserted or demonstrated that he has reasonable grounds to believe that the facts alleged are true. Therefore, the defendant's actions constitute illegal defamation of the plaintiff.

Point of issue 2: Occurrence and amount of damages
(Court's evaluation)

- This damages the Plaintiff's economic credibility and lowers his social standing. The manner in which it has done so is malicious, as it exaggerates the Plaintiff's alias as a "pseudonym" and reproduces images from the official gazette notice as if to support this, deliberately misleading readers.

Considering the previous tweet to the effect that it would not be defamatory unless it specifically named the plaintiff, the tweet in question deliberately used the appearance of an expressive act aimed at a person other than the plaintiff, and thus appears to have put into practice a method that would not be considered defamatory based on the aforementioned theory. If this is the case, it must be said that the tweet was based on a selfish motive.

- From the series of previous tweets by the defendant, it can be seen that the defendant repeatedly expressed his hostility towards the plaintiff's separate defamation lawsuit, and that this tweet was part of an attack on the plaintiff.

- As of July 2, 2020, the defendant's account had 18,000 followers, so the social impact of the tweets is not small.

After the filing of this lawsuit was reported, the defendant posted comments such as, "An activist named Shiori Ito suddenly decided to sue me. To be honest, I have no idea what that means," "I will fight back," and "Sad News: Shiori Ito holds a one-sided press conference before her trial in an attempt to get public opinion on her side, but the reaction is the exact opposite and it ends up being a complete failure," and has not softened his aggressive stance against the plaintiff.

Recognizing the above circumstances, and even taking into account that the tweet in question was only posted once, the mental distress caused to the plaintiff cannot be ignored, and the court determined that 300,000 yen in compensation should be awarded to the plaintiff, and 30,000 yen in attorney's fees should be awarded.

③Whether or not a request to delete a tweet can be made

Since it can only be said that the content continues to infringe on the plaintiff's right to honor, the court determined that it was appropriate to order the defendant to delete the content.