The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person working as the director of the DNA Hospital, and around December 2012, the E pharmacy in front of the above D Hospital interfered with the work of the D Hospital by spreading false facts to the pharmacist F, who is operating the said D Hospital, “in her country, he will close the door of this hospital to the ney of this hospital.” In addition, the above pharmacy, by spreading false facts to the ney and incurable patients who purchased medicine in the above pharmacy, such as “if it will close the hospital door, it would be possible to close the hospital door.”

2. The Defendant consistently denies the instant facts charged from the police to the instant court (i.e., the Defendant did not have any statement itself as stated in the facts charged to F, and there is only a change to the purport that “the Defendant was retired from the D Hospital, and the Defendant did not yet have yet to recover from the D Hospital”) that the prosecutor applied as evidence for conviction against the said facts charged (i.e., the witness G’s statement in this court, the police’s statement in the protocol of statement as to G, the second protocol of statement as to the Defendant in the police preparation, the part of the protocol of statement as to G among the suspect interrogation as to the Defendant in the second protocol of suspect interrogation as to the Defendant in the police preparation, and the statement of G preparation’s statement and F’s statement (i.e., the witness F’s statement in this court, and the statement of fact of F’s preparation; hereinafter the same shall apply).

First of all, the statement from G's investigative agency to this court is that "F became aware of the fact that it had become aware of the fact that it had taken the hospital staff again from the hospital staff," and the statement at the trial date of G is so-called a so-called re-specialized statement whose contents are the statements made by those who experienced the facts requiring proof at the preparatory hearing or outside the trial date, and the statement made by G's investigative agency at the investigative agency and the statement made by G's investigative agency are the same.