Another reason lies in what is called "investigation and prosecution failures." According to the defense, the investigators did not conduct an investigation for the purpose of clarifying the truth and doing justice, but their entire purpose was to incriminate Defendant 1. They did not examine alternative investigative directions, ignoring evidence that required them to interrogate additional suspects and explore alternative options. In addition, the interrogators did not collect testimonies from a significant portion of the relevant witnesses, and the interrogation was conducted in a horribly superficial manner. The investigators conducted a tendentious investigation and made the interrogees involved understand that if they incriminated the defendant, they would save themselves from criminal entanglement. It was further argued that the interrogators violated the basic rights of defendant 1, and it was sufficient that they did not inform him of his right to consult with an attorney and did not exercise his right to counsel. In addition, searches were carried out in an inhumane manner and interrogations were conducted over long hours until the wee hours of the night, so that the interrogee was in a difficult mental state.
In addition to these, the defense alleges a failure or defect in the investigation and claim that lies in the performance of the completion
Investigation during the trial and after the filing of the indictment. In this way, defendant 1 suffered a real impairment of his ability to defend himself properly. The prosecution carried out, in the course of the proceeding, investigative actions that were required to be carried out by the investigators and not by the plaintiff himself.
It was also argued that the prosecution's failure to summon certain witnesses to testify in court should be viewed as a prosecution failure, which impaired the possibility of reaching the discovery of the truth.
In summary, it was argued that the failures of the investigation and the prosecution amount to a material contradiction to the principles of justice and legal fairness, and that defendant 1 should be acquitted on this grounds as well.