I just watched The Admiral and was curious so began reading about the Battle of Myeongnyang. A pretty smashing Korean victory.
Curious, I clicked on the Japanese version and let Google translate it for me. Now this is where it gets interesting.
The translation is sloppy, but I think there's no mistaking what the essence of what it says:
invasion of the results as Japan navy have been successful
and
battle of myeongnyang is "to strategically" the Korean side of defeat at this point.
and
Yi Yi has retreated to the north after the war, naval force of the Japanese side has achieved the strategic objectives is to advance to the West Bank
Rough translation: The Japanese consider this battle a victory for them because they managed to achieve some "strategic goal" of capturing the bank.
What is the truth here? Do these kinds of parallel versions of history exist between other countries? I find it so hilarious reading the Korean version and then the Japanese version of events. The Japanese live in their own world.
Their article on the occupation of Korea also conveniently contains no mention of any of the violent atrocities committed against its citizens.
The Japanese have their own version of history because everyone has their own version of history. History is written by people which means that it is subject to their biases (conscious or otherwise), of which nationalism is a common one. A good historian will try to be aware of and compensate for their personal biases, but that's often impossible.
A computer-translated version of a poorly-cited Wikipedia page isn't exactly a fair way of determining what "the Japanese" do or do not believe. Wikipedia has a number of well-documented issues (which is why it isn't considered a credible source here) and the Japanese version in particular does not have a good reputation.
Unfortunately I do not have a Japanese-language history that describes the Battle of Myeongnyang except in passing. But those books which do mention it all do so as a Japanese defeat.
You're basing your question on Wikipedia. You've just discovered why Wikipedia is not a credible source here. But what you're asking about is official Japanese histories, which is not what you're seeing here.
If you can provide some evidence that this is something greater than a Wikipedia article that literally anyone could have written, it will be a lot easier to address the issue (assuming it is as severe as you propose).