The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On April 12, 2013, the summary of the facts charged, at the construction site located in Seopopopo City B, Seopopo City C on April 14:38, 2013, the victim (owner) who is a partner company under the control of the victim D (owner) who is the contractor of the said construction work, was conducting the production of various block, etc., and the equipment, such as ready-mixed, intended to enter the construction site for concrete building sites necessary for the said work.

At this time, the Defendant, together with F, G, H, I, J, K, etc. from that time until 14:47 of the same day, installed, sited or opened a chair and banner at the entrance of L 14:47 of the same day, and the Defendant interfered with the construction vehicles from leaving the construction site by means of buttering.

As a result, the Defendant, in collaboration with F, has obstructed the construction work of the victim D (ju) and E (ju) who is a partner company, by making it difficult for the Defendant to operate construction vehicles, such as 10 minutes of a construction vehicle by force with the above F, etc.

2. As evidence concerning the above facts charged, there are ① M’s written statement, damaged matters, ② All site photographs, evidentiary materials (cd), ③ Witness N andO’s respective legal statements (each protocol of examination of witness after the renewal of the trial).

First of all, the above evidence is based on the premise that the video files in the above documentary evidence (c) are admissible as evidence, since the above evidence is the content of the video files stored in the documentary evidence (c) inasmuch as the video files in the documentary evidence (c) are admissible as evidence, each on-site photograph, and each on-site photograph is copied the video files in the documentary evidence (c).

However, the video files stored in documentary evidence (c) are copies of the original recorded in the field by electronic means, and the present original files of images are still deleted and nonexistent.

Thus, the copy stored in the documentary evidence (c) has not been changed to the same content as the original stored in the original of the digital storage medium taken first, and until the original is stored as a copy.