Defendants are not guilty.

1. Facts charged;

A. Around June 2012, Defendant A interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force for about one hour, including: (a) in the “E cafeteria” operated by the said victim D (V, 54 years of age); (b) in a “E cafeteria”; (c) in a fluence 4 disease; and (d) in drinking and drinking; (c) in the next customer, Defendant A expressed a bath to “I see”; and (d) fluences and fluories, and (e) fluences the victim’s restaurant business by force.

B. Defendant B, around May 2012, at “Ecafeteria” operated by the said victim D (V, 54 years of age), the said victim d (hereinafter referred to as “Ecafeteria”), she was able to drinkd and bread while drinking 4 diseases, and she was frighted, and frightd to the victim’s horse, and obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force for about one hour, such as taking time expenses to customers.

2. There are evidence that conforms to the facts charged in the instant case, such as witness D and F’s each legal statement, D and F’s each prosecutor’s statement, and copies of account books.

However, as seen below, it is difficult to believe that the statements in D's investigative agency and in this court are inconsistent and dependent on a vague memory with no physical constitution, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case.

① At the third trial date of this Court, D was present as a witness, and himself did not report to the police station on the facts charged of this case against Defendant A, and the criminal F stated to the effect that “I would like to go through the military trial only if all the people are only young people, and if you have little drinking, I would like to go through the military trial.”

② In addition, D does not enter the police station's investigation on the above trial date, and D makes a written statement at the restaurant operated by police officers.