Colabo” Yumeno Nito loses defamation trial but vehemently refutes the verdict.

She had just “won” another defamation case. ……

On March 27, Yumuno Nito, 36, a social activist known for her activities to protect teenage girls who have been victims of abuse and sexual exploitation and to support their independence, and also a popular influencer with 87,000 followers on X, “Colabo,” the representative director of a general incorporated association. On March 27, she lost a lawsuit in which she was accused of defamation and infringement of portrait rights.

On March 12, Nito won a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against a man claiming to be “Akane Busy Sky,” claiming that his reputation had been damaged by a false post, winning 2.2 million yen in compensation and having the post removed. On the official website of “Colabo,” Nito said,

I hope that our social credibility will be restored as a result of this victory.

She had commented on ……. However, she was sued for defamation and “lost” the lawsuit.

The person who filed the suit was Ms. A, a professional athlete. She claimed that Mr. Nito’s five postings on X since July 27, 2011 constituted defamation and infringement of her portrait rights, and demanded compensation for damages and deletion of the postings. The Tokyo District Court ordered Mr. Nito to pay 330,000 yen and delete the five postings in question.

The incident began on July 17, Reiwa 2025, when Saya (real name: Seika Shioiri), 43, a member of the Sangen-tei party, gave a speech in Bunkyo Ward, Tokyo.

One, two, suffrage party! The speech ended with a loud chorus of supporters shouting, “One, two, Sangseito! Nito held high a placard that read “No nuclear weapons! and “Stop discrimination!” and approached Saya to protest.

Amid the uproar at the scene, Takaaki Mitsuhashi, 56, an economic commentator who had come to watch the speech, stopped him to prevent him from approaching Mr. Saya. Mr. Mitsuhashi stood in front of Mr. Nito, advancing with his arms outstretched as if to shield him, and the two made contact. Mr. Nito fell to the ground, falling to the ground on his back.

At first glance, it appeared to be a trouble between Mr. Nito and Mr. Mihashi, who were directly confronting each other at the scene. However, Mr. Nito began to name Mr. A, a third party who was listening to the speech nearby, as also being a party to the trouble.

On July 27, Mr. Nito updated his X account,

7/17 about being assaulted by a party official and supporter at a campaign for the Upper House Party. The woman who assaulted me along with the man (editor’s note: Mr. Mitsuhashi) was a racist professional athlete.

She punched me multiple times in the back and pushed me toward the man who was assaulting me, causing me to fall over.

They even published a link to a YouTube video featuring Mr. A and a picture of his face. He also mentioned Ms. A’s desire to run for the district assembly in the future and denounced her. In response to these attacks, Ms. A later filed a lawsuit against Mr. Nito in the Tokyo District Court for defamation and violation of portrait rights.

Friday Digital obtained the documents of the judgment held at the Tokyo District Court on March 27. We report in detail on the facts revealed in the trial.

Court Finds “Soccer Simulation”

The biggest point of contention in court was “Was there really an assault? However, after examining the video, the Tokyo District Court found that “there was no assault and that Mr. Nito fell on purpose.

[The plaintiff was not found to have assaulted the defendant. In other words, although it is true that the plaintiff pushed the defendant back during the contact, it is natural and obvious that this was a defensive action to prevent the defendant from falling like an avalanche, as the defendant was backing toward the plaintiff’s side. It is not an assault.

The fact that the defendant fell down even though there was no particular cause for falling down on the video, it is reasonable to assume that the defendant fell down on purpose to pretend to be assaulted even though he was not assaulted, just as in a so-called “soccer simulation”.

The judge called it a “soccer simulation” (a dishonest act of pretending to be fouled in order to deceive the referee and obtain a free kick, etc.).

In addition, Mr. Nito was issued a medical certificate stating that he suffered bruises on his right hand, lower back, and both buttocks as a result of the fall, and that he will be completely healed in about 10 days. Also on this point,

Since the medical certificate contains only a subjective chief complaint, in light of the circumstances at the time of the above fall, it should be said that even if he had been injured, he would have suffered only minor bruising.

(from the judgment text) The court concluded that the doctor had merely written down what the patient had claimed in an exaggerated manner. In other words, Mr. Nito’s X,

In other words, Nito’s statement that “X punched me multiple times in the back and pushed me toward the man who was assaulting me, causing me to fall over” is “a false statement.

The court found that this statement was “false.

Fact finding that the purpose was “election interference”.

So why did Mr. Nito go to the trouble of claiming that the incident was an “assault”? The court also asked about the motive,

It is clear that the defendant had the motive and purpose of creating an assault case and pretending that it existed, even though it was not true, solely for the purpose of obstructing the election against the political parties.

(from the text of the judgment).

The judiciary used the term “production. In other words, it means that he “fabricated” a false assault as a fact for political purposes. The court found that Mr. Nito had not merely misunderstood, but had clearly intended to assert the existence of an assault that was not true.

The court also severely criticized Mr. Nito’s postings of X. The court stated, “In each of the postings in this case, Mr. Nito has made a public statement.

The court further condemned Mr. Nito’s postings of Mr. X, saying, “Although these postings are public, they reveal the plaintiff’s profile and transmit his appearance, etc., and since they are made after pointing out the fact that he is not the actual perpetrator of the assault, they infringe upon the rights to honor, privacy, and publicity in a way that exceeds the limits of what is acceptable in social life. Therefore, it can be said that the case infringes on the rights to honor, privacy, and publicity beyond the acceptable limits of social life.

The Tokyo District Court ruled that Mr. Nito must pay 330,000 yen (300,000 yen in compensation plus 30,000 yen in attorney’s fees) and ordered him to delete all five of the offending posts.

Mr. A had sought a total of 3.3 million yen, including compensation, but the amount approved was only one-tenth of that amount. Ironically, the reason the court limited the amount of compensation was because of the video that Mr. Nito himself attached to his post as “evidence. The court’s decision reads as follows

The fact that the defendant pretended to have been assaulted when he was not actually assaulted is fully recognizable to the general public who saw the video, since the defendant himself attached a portion of the video to each of the postings. (3) It can be said that only a limited range of people, including supporters of the defendant, trust the defendant’s postings in this case.

In other words, the video that Mr. Nito published as “evidence of the assault” along with the contents of his attack on Ms. A ironically served as proof of his “self-made” act for the general public. In fact, the court also mentioned the fact that the defendant’s post had received many comments such as, “You bumped into me yourself, you’re a hitman!

The influencer Takizawa Galeso posted on X that “Yumuno Nito was publicly recognized as a ‘lying activist’ by the court (here and now),” etc. As of April 30, the verdict had received 5.04 million impressions and was a major topic of conversation in the online world, As of April 30, the post had received 5.04 million impressions, and the court’s ruling has become a major topic of conversation in online circles.

Nito’s Lawyer Fiercely Refutes the Ruling, Saying the Facts Were Bent

Although the Tokyo District Court has ruled that the case was “self-induced,” the legal battle is far from over. Nito’s side has already appealed to the Tokyo High Court against the ruling of the first instance court.

Friday Digital sent a letter of inquiry to Mr. Nito to inquire about his views after the first court ruling. We received a response through his attorney. First, what is the reason for the appeal?

Mr. Nito stated, “Although there are many reasons for my dissatisfaction with the verdict, I believe that the most serious error is that the court found that I was not assaulted even though I was assaulted.

He emphasizes that the assault was real. He also emphasized that the assault was real,

We wonder why the facts have to be so perverted to this extent, and it is extremely regrettable,” he said.

He also questioned the motive of “election meddling,

I read the judgment with indignation,” he said.

He also expressed a vehement rejection of the apology to Mr. A and his contributions.

When asked about his intention to apologize to Mr. A or delete his postings, he responded, “I have no intention to do so. As a reason for this, he cited the fact that the judge had “recommended that Ms. A withdraw the preliminary injunction that was issued prior to this trial, requesting that she delete her postings as soon as possible,” and that the judge had in fact withdrawn the injunction. And,

In this appeal, I would like to clarify the error of the first instance judgment at the appeal hearing.

In this appeal, we would like to clarify the errors in the first trial decision at the appeal hearing,” the company clearly states its confrontational stance.

Meanwhile, the lawyer’s office representing Ms. A, the plaintiff, responded to Friday Digital, “We decline to give interviews or comment on this case.

While the judiciary declared that she “fell down on purpose” based on the video evidence, Mr. Nito’s side is in a quagmire, claiming that the judiciary is “distorting the facts. We will continue to monitor the next decision by the high court.