1) Spending on judicial advice, that will be reflected in receipts. None have come to contest this.
2) Taking of judicial advice, that will be documented by solicitors or lawyers. No lawyers have stepped to up claim that Kim had rejected their legal advice.
3) Providing access of files to right holders as they requested.
4) Not receiving any warning letters that his actions were inadequate.
These are hard facts, not something you can just make up. Moreover, none of the prosecution have made any contest to such claims.
The 'evidence' the prosecution have presented are largely 'out of context', a proof of intent rather than a proof of deed and causing commercial damage before enquiry.
1) The problem claimed here is not that they had hidden search tools for right holders, but rather they had a lack of search tools that was only available for internal use. That is a lack of feature, it could be a tool under testing/development, it could be anything. Why is there no elaboration on this?
2) There are some out of place evidence that are raised, for example payment of uploaders for popularity, pressure of download rate and deletion to users, top 100 list is not accurate, limitation of DMCA file removal tool, not using a hash system(used to police child porn files), use of 'odd' email names, money laundering claims. These are either taken out of context of copyright material or unreasonable, figure it yourself.
3) The only claim that holds some water is questionable itself, that is, the removal of link rather than file, thus allowing duplicate links. AFAIK if the published evidence are true, the tool allows the right holders removal of the file, and if a link were reported without using the tool, MU will only remove the link. Now, that is biting your own hand, because if MU removed all links to the same file, a link created by the authorized distributor would be removed. This can be used by distributors as private links, such that only with certain access, such as in a private forum, the private link would be shared through that service without public knowledge. Therefore, it is still not enough to proof anything.
There is also some shady activity going on...
That is evidence right there. Don't destroy it until the trial ends. Do these people know what they are doing? If they do, then I worry, because they might be thinking that destroying evidence will tilt the case to their favour. I would be fine with it if its ignorance but they can't be that stupid to let this be used as a fighting point for Kim.
Instead of working with Kim, right holders have decided to attack him, and I don't think they are going to get far.