The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant A is published.

1. The Defendants charged of the instant case, when they were to have suffered damage equivalent to KRW 100 million in the course of trading with D’s wife E and cosmetics, they also incur money from the front side of the D’s operation (ju), located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, around January 19, 2015, around 13:00, around January 19, 2015, along with two persons (one “F”, one “G”).

Highly, the demonstration was conducted.

While the Defendants were engaged in the demonstration as above, the victim J(39 years old), who is an employee of the I, taken the Defendants into a mobile phone, Defendant B her gets off the victim’s hand, thereby damaging the mobile phone. The Defendants, along with the two persons of the above-mentioned person’s influence, she embling the victim’s breath with his/her hand, and assaulted the victim by spreading his/her body several times.

As a result, the Defendants assaulted the victim jointly with two or more persons who did not have the above name.

2. As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, the victim J’s statement to the investigating agency and the video CD reproduction viewing submitted by J would result in the victim J’s video CD reproduction.

First, according to the result of Defendant A’s viewing of the screen of the video CD play submitted by the K and the K, it is confirmed that Defendant A was aware that Defendant A was able to see his own title in the following manner: (a) Defendant A was able to see his and her dispute between Defendant B and Defendant B, and Defendant B, who was dissatisfied with the J; and (b) Defendant A was able to see his and her own title in the following manner: (c) Defendant A was able to see the fact that Defendant A was able to see his and her name in the name of the deceased and the J; and (d) Defendant A was not able to see his and her body in the latter part of the investigation agency; and (c) the J was strokeed by Defendant A.

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged regarding Defendant A, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the same.

Next, according to the results of Defendant B’s viewing of the above video CD play, Defendant B, along with his name-free person.