Plato wrote about trail of Socrates in ancient Athens. Writer design story in a way where we don't get to hear accusers, we are only able to hear an explanation of a person who was called to the court. In the end of the story Socrates is found guilty to be punished but does that judgment reflect real guiltiness?
When we considering whether someone's is guilty or innocent, first we have
to look closer at the system of justice, rules that it follows and charges carried out. Every court follow certain rules and has its own unique point of view. One can deliver a judgment of guiltiness and other opposite in the same case. Court which judged Socrates follows by the rules that were set up by Athenians and reflect the standards and norms of Athens at that time. So even though we didn't get to hear accusers, reader can conclude that their speech applied better to well known standards, required in court in opposite to the speech of Socrates which didn't o convince judges.
Accused claims "I've been convinced because I was at loss, not however for speeches, but for daring and shamelessness and willingness to say the sorts of things to you that you would have been most pleased to hear :me wailing and lamenting .." (38d). This means Socrates was conscious, that he's judged by rules that might not uncover the truth behind charges, and following and agreeing to those rules is impossible for him because he would deny to a person he was all his life.
So what is Socrates accused of? He challenges with charges that have been risen many years before the trial and sound like that: "Socrates does injustice and is meddlesome, by investigating the things under the earth and the heavenly things,