The action of sharing the image resulted in the 52-year-old woman being charged, but ultimately she avoided a conviction because of her lesser involvement in the reposting "equation".
For that reason her name was also permanently suppressed.
The charge of posting an intimate visual recording carries a maximum two-year prison term or a $50,000 fine.
"This really was a perfect storm of factors that led to the offending," defence lawyer Amanda Godwin told the court.
The defendant was charged after the victim complained to the police.
Judge Stephen Harrop said it was a serious charge, and the court recognised the serious harm caused to people by posting such material, but the defendant had since suffered "serious abuse" online, making her a victim of harmful social media, too.
She had suffered other consequences, including the loss of a contract linked to her business.
The court heard that in January this year, the defendant met an Australian man on TikTok. The man had received the intimate image from the complainant via Snapchat.
He shared the image to a Messenger group of about 13 people, to which the defendant belonged.
Another member of the group "doctored" the image to make it animated and shared it with the defendant, who sent it to the TikTok acquaintance to "double check" he had seen it.
The person who doctored the image and shared it has been charged and will be sentenced in a South Island court next month.
Judge Harrop said the "real culprit" was the man who shared it initially, but he acknowledged the victim was concerned about it having been reposted.
"We have a situation where the victim put it out in the first place, which was intended for one person but was then published to a group of 13," Judge Harrop said.
"It does mean the seriousness of the offending is less than what appeared."
He said the defendant had then suffered a "sustained campaign of harassment and abuse" online and she too had become a victim.
She had since been diagnosed with a mental health condition that was likely to make her act impulsively.
The consequences of a conviction were, therefore, likely to be greater than they might be for someone more resilient, Judge Harrop said in granting a discharge without conviction.
The defendant was ordered to make a $200 emotional harm payment to the victim.
