Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that Defendant B and Defendant A are married couple, and Defendant B is in office as the president of the D Association E Association and uses public funds of the Association, disputes with the victim F and the victim G, etc. who are union members, continue.

At around 11:00 on May 29, 2012, Defendant B expressed to the victims that “it should be cut off, sick, Sick, Sick, Sick, Sick, L et al.,” and Defendant A expressed to the victims that “it should be cut off, sick, Sick, Sick, Sick, Sick, and Sick.” Defendant A expressed to the victims that “it should be cut off, knick, knick, knick, and knick, knick, knick, knick, and knick, knick, knick, knick, and knick.”

As such, the Defendants conspired to insult the victims publicly.

2. Defendants’ assertion and judgment

A. Although the Defendants had expressed desire to the victim F and the victim G as stated in the facts charged in the instant case’s assertion, they were only J, K, and L, the victims were working at the instant site at that time, and there was no village resident, and thus, performance is not recognized.

B. In order to establish the offense of insult, “public performance” should be recognized as insulting a person. In the offense of insult, “public performance” refers to a state in which many and unspecified persons can be recognized.

First of all, as alleged by the Defendants, we examine whether the Defendants, victims, J, K, and L can be recognized as a performance at the present site, and according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, it is recognized that the E members, such as J, K, and L, were in the present site with the victims, and they were in the present site. In light of their relationship, performance is difficult to recognize.

Therefore, in order to be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, there is about 10 village residents’ desire.