The Defendants are not guilty. 1. The debtors are 13,289 square meters of the factory site located in Osan-si (attached Form 1 drawings), 1, 2, and 2.

1. The facts charged D are E pre-service, and Defendant A is the head of the E on-site work team, and Defendant B is the E employee.

F In order to sell the machinery facilities installed in a factory after the decision to suspend the business was made, the FOsan factory shall select “E” through the process of selecting the company and enter into a sales contract by setting the sales price of the machinery facilities at KRW 4.277 billion, and received from E around May 2015 a deposit of KRW 2.54 billion, which is KRW 50 billion, including value-added tax, from E.

E The side entered into a contract on the condition that the 30 protocol of machinery was taken out at the time of payment of 50 protocols.

On the other hand, the F, despite the demand of the E to pay the remainder of 50 protocols on several occasions, was a situation where conflicts were occurred by preventing entry into and departure from E and removal of machinery.

On September 21, 2015, at around 20:08, the Defendants: (a) removed two enforcement officers, etc. belonging to Suwon District Court G on the part of Suwon District Court 2015Kahap 80797, and attached to the front part of the main entrance and guard room of the factory, despite the fact that they were attached to the front part of the main entrance and guard room of the building at the site of the factory; (b) the Defendants, upon receiving D’s instructions, dismantled the steel gate (2m, 5m in width) installed on the left side of the F regularly, and removed the machinery gate, etc. at the market price of the F Company that was removed from the factory, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the said provisional disposition.

2. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that they carried out the instant plant under E’s direction without being aware of disputes between E and E, or the provisional disposition order of this case, as the daily workers employed in E for the purpose of carrying out the goods of this case.

The Defendants performed work without recognizing that they would impair the utility of the notice according to the instant provisional disposition order.