Defendants are not guilty.

1. Defendant A was the head of the Seoul Vehicle Branch E of the D Trade Union (hereinafter “DEU”) and Defendant B was the head of the DEU Seoul Vehicle Branch F.

D Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “G Corporation”) started disciplinary proceedings against members of D labor Relations Commissions related to the above strike, including the dismissal, reinstatement, and suspension of outsourcing of a restaurant, etc., from May 2009 to June 2009, when it demanded that D labor Relations Commission be engaged in illegal attitude in the search district, the nationwide attitude from around September 2009 to around September 20 of the same year, the warning strike by field, and the first in-depth regional chain from November 26 of the same year to around December 26 of the same year, thereby hindering the normal operation of the railroad and hindering the daily life of the people, thereby hindering the normal operation of the railroad and hindering the daily life of the people. From around November 26 of the same year, G Corporation (hereinafter “G Corporation”) started disciplinary proceedings against the members of D labor Relations Association from around January 11, 2010 to the Seoul Regional Headquarters, and notified the disciplinary committee of his or her participation in disciplinary action by taking account of his or her opinion and opinion given by the disciplinary committee.

However, by taking advantage of the fact that the members of the DEU including the Defendants are fully guaranteed the opportunity to state their opinions, they attended the disciplinary committee as a person or agent to state their opinions, and developed a statement irrelevant to the vindication of disciplinary action, such as the procedures for seat assignment, operation, designation of an agent, a claim opposing the installation of CCTV in the conference room of the disciplinary committee, and an application for challenge against the chairperson of the disciplinary committee without any reason, thereby hindering the normal progress of the disciplinary committee.

Defendant

A The defendant is H, I, and I, a member of the DNA labor union.