Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. On May 4, 2012, the Defendants conspired with the victim F, G, and HKa P, operated by the victim F, in the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E on the day-to-day basis, with the large amount of the victim F, “I would like to look at whether or not you want to do so.” The Defendants received the order and received the order, thereby obstructing the victim’s car page business by force by forcing customers to demand a refund.
B. At around 21:40 on May 5, 2012, the Defendants: (a) conspired to prevent customers from entering the said car page by not doing business; and (b) sending and entering the said car page; and (c) thereby obstructing the victims’ carpet business by force.
C. At around 16:30 on May 6, 2012, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the victims’ carpet business by force by taking a disturbance, such as fighting the victim F and body body, in the process of taking the picture remaining in the carpet.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected to be guilty, even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003).
G’s statements in the police and court, I and J’s respective prosecutorial offices and courts, and according to G’s legal statements, G mainly knew of the Defendants’ obstruction of duties from F and did not appear at the site at the time of the instant case. As such, it is difficult to believe the contents of the statements as they are, and each of the statements at the prosecutor’s office and court of Justice are, in the instant case.