Defendants publish the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the chairman of Suwon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Complex for Second Course D Apartment Complex (hereinafter referred to as the "Gu Senior Complex") and the defendant B is the head of the center for senior citizens.

Victims E shall be elected as the chairperson of the center for older persons on November 13, 2009, and the term of office shall expire on November 12, 2013.

However, on September 21, 201, the defendant et al. was the main Dong and passed a resolution of dismissal of the victim through the board of directors on September 21, 201, and opened an extraordinary general meeting for appointment of executive officers on October 13, 201, and the defendant et al. was elected as executive officers such as

Accordingly, on March 21, 2012, the victim asserted the invalidity of the resolution of dismissal through the board of directors, and received the decision of Suwon District Court 2012Kahap34 against the defendant et al. on March 21, 2012.

The content is that the defendant's duties are suspended until the judgment of nullification of the resolution of the special general meeting filed by the victim becomes final and conclusive, and the victim is appointed as the chairperson of the center for senior citizens.

On March 24, 2012, around 11:50 on March 24, 2012, the victim demanded the Defendants to make a verbal request to the Defendants, and according to the decision of the court, the head of the center for senior citizens, the seals, documents, etc. in order to vicariously act for the Chairperson according to the item of the "certification of Suspension of Duties" in March 27, 201

On March 28, 2012, Defendant A sent to the victim a content-certified mail stating that “the current director had decided to continue the operation of the second senior citizen hall until the judgment on the principal lawsuit was rendered,” and the Defendants did not give the victim the passbook, seal, etc. necessary for the execution of the budget of the senior citizen hall.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with and by force interfered with the duties of the victim's center chairperson.

2. The crime of interference with business is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. The term “definite force” refers to any force that can suppress and confinate a person’s free will.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do482, Mar. 17, 2011). However, in this case, “defluence” is deemed “defluence.”