b. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (Partial Revocation of Public Prosecution)

2010Gohap465 (Consolidation)

2010Gohap466 (Consolidation)

2010Gohap467 (Joint) e.b. the meeting place of the National Assembly

2010Gohap468 (Consolidation).

(g) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint arrest)

2010, 470 (Consolidation) General traffic obstruction

2010Gohap527 (Consolidation)

Housing marju City

○○○ Daegu

2. A. Na. Na. Ga. ○

Seoul Residence

○○ Gyeong-nam

3. A. Maumo

Residential ancient cities

○○○ Seoul

4.(a)Pest ○

Residential height;

○○○ Seoul

5.(a)(c)(d)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(O)

Seoul Residence

○○○ completed of the registration

6. (b) . (c) d. Roster;

Incheon Residence

○ registered ○ Ulsan

7. b. c. d. Ma. Ma-○

Seoul Residence

○○○ Daegu

8. Na. Da. Do. Ma-○

Accommodation-si

○○ Registered North Korea

9. B. (c) D. E. Kim○-○

Residential Suwon City

○ Registered Heading Jeju

10. (a) Yellow ○

Seoul Residence

registered ○○ District Gwangju

11. (a) b. g. new ○

Residential Cheongju

○○○○ Seoul

12. A. ○○

Seoul Residence

registered ○○ Busan

13. (a) Do Governor

Housing marju City

○○○○ Seoul

14. b. D. H. H. H. Doz. ○○

Seoul Residence

○○ Gyeong-nam

(private ships for all of the defendants)

However, with respect to the defendant ○○, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

One seized kacker (No. 79196 No. 1 of the investigation records of 2009) shall be forfeited from Defendant ○○○.

Defendant Park ○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, Kim ○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, respectively, ordered the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine.

Of the facts charged of this case, the charge of obstruction of performance of official duties on April 8, 2009 and the charge of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on November 9, 2009 against Defendant ○○○ on the ground of non-compliance with the dispersion order on November 9, 2009 is acquitted.

[Defendant 2010 Ma463] [Defendant 2010 Ma463, the largest ○○○, Ma○○, and Ma○○○○ is the chairman of the Korea Press Workers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Press Union”). Defendant Park Jong-○ was the chief of the media labor-management cultural broadcasting (hereinafter referred to as “MBC”) from March 2007 to March 3, 2009, and was the vice chief of the MBC reporting State, and Defendant Jeong-○ is the vice chief of the MBC reporting State, and Defendant Jung-○ from March 2007 to March 3, 2009.

3. From March 2007 to March 3, 2009, a person who held the secretary general of the press labor union MBC headquarters and held a sound production conference belonging to the MBC production technology department. Defendant ○○ is a person who held the director general of the press labor union MBC headquarters negotiation dispute from March 3, 2007 to March 3, 2009.

On November 24, 200, the media labor union has 31 branches, such as MBC headquarters, SBS headquarters, and CBS branch, YN branch, EBS branch, Han BS branch, Han BS branch, Han BS branch, Han BS branch, Han BS branch, and the Korea Daily Service branch, and 116 branches and 31 sub-branches.

1. From December 26, 2008 to January 7, 2009, the media union's obstruction of business [Defendant ○○○, Park○○, Jeong○, and ○○○○○○○○○] means that the proposal for the press-related laws promoted by Hanraaa, including the proposal for the amendment of the Broadcasting Act that permits large and medium enterprises to own the shares of newspaper companies, etc. is based on the conspiracy of the press of Hanna City, which causes damage to the independence and public nature of the media. From October 21, 2008 to the 23th of the same month, the headquarters, branch, and sub-branch of the media union "," among the provisions, the committee members of the terrestrial broadcasting union, the opposition to the amendment of the Broadcasting Act for terrestrial music, the majority of small and medium enterprises and local newspapers, the majority of the National Assembly members of the workplace with the consent of 2009, the majority of the National Assembly members of the National Assembly, the majority of 800 and the dissenting vote of the National Assembly members of Korea.

After that, the Korean National Assembly held a meeting of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee on December 23, 2008 at the press conference room on the 18th floor in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, held a meeting of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee on December 26, 2008. < Amended by Act No. 927, Dec. 26, 2008>

06: From 00 to 00, Defendant ○○ decided to go to the general strike for the purpose of preventing the National Assembly from submitting a bill related to the press, and Defendant ○○ was to go to the general strike from 26:0 to 06:0 on December 23, 2008, the former headquarters, branch, and sub-branch shall go to the total strike. The former member shall refuse all reports and production except the press report and act in accordance with the press labor union guidelines. The former member will come to the general strike meeting held in 26:0 p.m. (gold) 26:0 p.m. and the latter member will go to the headquarters and sub-branch under “No. 6 of the Press Labor Relations Guidelines.”

Accordingly, on December 23, 2008, Defendant 2-○○○○○, ○○○○○, and the last ○○○○○○○○○, based on the above media labor union operation guidelines, “The National Press Group of Korea is clear that Korea-China would enforce the 7th anniversary of the 25th day after the 19th day after the 19th day after the 19th day after the 19th day after the 26th day after the 19th day after the 19th day after the 19th day after the 19th day after the 26th day after the 19th day after the 19th day after the 26th day after the 19th day after the 19th day after the 20th day after the 19th day after the 19th day after the 19th day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 25th day after the 20th day after the 20th day. day. day after the 20. day. day. day.

The term "labor dispute" means a dispute situation arising out of disagreements between a trade union and an employer or employers' association with respect to the determination of working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment. In order to be an industrial action of a trade union, an industrial action shall be conducted under the premise of disagreements with an employer with respect to the determination of working conditions, and an industrial action shall not be conducted for the purpose of opposing the amendment of the law that has no possibility

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to go to the general strike of the press union for the purpose of preventing the National Assembly from submitting a bill related to the press, such as the Broadcasting Act.

(a) On December 26, 2008, Defendant 1 ○○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○○ Joint (1): From 00 to 18:00 members of the headquarters located in Young-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, to refuse to provide labor in accordance with the above general frequency business guidelines; 10:0 on the same day: 14: from 00 to 100, to 200, the members of the headquarters were to participate in the strike by 10 members of the headquarters, including 20,000 members of the headquarters, or by 10,000 members of the headquarters from 20,000 to 20,000 members of the headquarters from 20,000 to 18,000 members of the headquarters, including 1,4,5,712, 14, 15, and 10,000 members of the local headquarters, to participate in the strike by 20,000 members of the headquarters.

(3) On December 30, 2008, 09: 00 to 00, 00 members refused to provide labor at the MBC headquarters, 650 members from around 00 to participate in the strike in such a way as to participate in the conference on the general strike of labor union members held in front of the Korean National Bank, etc. from around 14:0 on the same day. (3) The list of crimes in attached Form 1, 4-7, 10, 12-15, and 17, such as the list in attached Table 1, 4-7, 10, 12-17, the head office and 10 local affiliated members of the MBC headquarters and 10 local affiliated members of the MBC headquarters refused to provide labor and interfere with the operation of the headquarters and local affiliated companies by force.

(4) On December 31, 2008, 09: 00 to 00, 00 members refused to provide labor at the MBC headquarters, and 650 members from around 00 to participate in the strike in such a way as to participate in the conference for the resolution on the general strike held before the Korean National Bank, from around 13:0 on the same day. (4) The list of crimes in the attached Table. (4) The current status of the place of business participating in the strike as shown in No. 1, 4-7, 10, 12-16 on December 31, 200.

(5) On January 2, 2009: From 00 to 18:00, members of the MBC headquarters refused to provide labor and participated in the strike in such a way as holding an independent meeting from the 200-c main office rains. (5) The list of crimes in attached Form 2, such as the list of members of the MBC headquarters and 9 local affiliated companies, such as refusing to provide labor, and allowing 1,075 members of the MBC headquarters and 9 local affiliated companies to participate in the total strike by means of its own assembly or propaganda at each place of business to interfere with the work of the head office and local affiliated companies of the MBC headquarters and the local affiliated company (6): from 00 to 1800, MBC headquarters to enter 650 members of the members of the members of the association in the way of labor supply, and to hold 1,500 members of the association in the way of strike and labor supply, etc., 650 members of the members of the association in the way of strike and 1500 others.

(7) On January 6, 2009: from 00 to 18:00, 650 members refuse to provide labor at the headquarters of MBC, and from 00 to participate in the strike in such a way as to participate in the conference on the general strike of labor union members held in the front of the G-do Industrial Bank from 00: 14:00 to 14:00 on the same day, and attached crimes list 7: the press union members of MBC headquarters and 11 local affiliated companies as described in No. 1 to 10, 12, and 13 on January 6, 2009.

(8) On January 7, 2009: from 00 to 18:00, members of the MBC headquarters refused to provide labor and participated in the strike by means of refusing to provide labor at the 650 members of the MBC headquarters and holding their own assemblies on the streets. (8) The list of crimes in attached Form 8, such as MBC headquarters and 11 members of the 11 local affiliated companies, such as MBC headquarters and 141 members of the 11 local affiliated companies, refused to provide labor, and interfere with the work of the MaBC headquarters and local affiliated companies by force by allowing them to participate in the strike by means of self-convenation or propagation of each place of business.

B. On December 26, 2008, the Defendant 28 members of four business places, such as CBS 2, 3, 6, and 13 a year of crime list 1, 2008, including CBS, SBS, SBS, SBS, SW 3, and Daejeon Broadcasting (TB), refused to provide labor, and participated in the total strike by participating in the cBS, SBS, SBS, SW 3, and Daejeon Broadcasting by force. (2) On December 29, 2008, Defendant 2 interfered with the business of Daejeon Broadcasting by force. (2) On December 29, 2008, 2008, members of SBS 40 members, such as SBS, refuse to provide labor and hold an assembly itself, thereby interfering with SB’s business by force.

(3) On December 30, 2008, 3BS, 8, 9, 11, 16, and 18, the total number of 245 members of 7 business places, such as CBS head office, SBS, Gwangju CBS, Jeju Northern BankBS, Cheongju Broadcasting (CJB), Cheongil Broadcasting (CJB), and 245 members of cBS, SBS, Cheongju Broadcasting, and Cheongil Broadcasting, were obstructed by force by means of refusing to provide labor and participating in the general strike. (4) On December 31, 2008, 2008, 3BS, 2,3,8, 9, 111, 4, 2008, 3BS, 3BS, 3BS, 12, 12, 32, 32, 32, 8, 9, 111, 2008, 3BS, 12,

(5) On January 6, 2009, Cheongju Broadcasting (CJB) members of Cheongju Broadcasting (CJB) refused to provide labor and participated in the general strike by means of refusing to provide labor, participating in the general strike, etc. as indicated in No. 11 per annum 7 of a crime committed on January 6, 2009, thereby obstructing Cheongju Broadcasting’s business by force.

2. From February 26, 2009 to March 3, 2009, the media union's obstruction of business due to the strike [Defendant ○○○, Park Il-○, the last ○○○, the last ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ] on February 25, 2009, when the National Assembly of Korea opened a resolution meeting of "the total strike of force" in front of the National Bank of Yong-do from 00 to 2009 to 200 days of the National Assembly's general assembly of culture, sports, tourism and tourism-related legislation that was presented to the committee, and the committee's general assembly of union members and the committee' 20th 25th 20 day of the National Assembly's general assembly of Labor Act.

Accordingly, Defendant 2-○○○, Ma○○○, and ○○○○○ on the same day recommended members of MBC headquarters and local affiliates to participate in the strike by posting a notice on a general strike resolution on the website of the MBC headquarters on the same day. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to resume the labor union union business for the purpose of “the passage of the National Assembly through the media-related laws, such as the Broadcasting Act”.

A. On February 26, 2009, Defendant 2: from 00 to 00, Defendant 2 had 650 members of MBC headquarters and 12 local affiliated companies participate in the strike in the manner of refusing to provide labor at the headquarters of MBC and holding an independent assembly at the center of MBC headquarters, etc. from 00, and interfere with the business of MBC headquarters and local affiliated companies by force by refusing to provide labor and by allowing 1,240 members of MBC headquarters and 12 local affiliated companies to participate in the strike, etc.

(2) On February 27, 2009: 00: 00 to 18:0, 610 members of MBC headquarters were refused to provide labor and participate in the strike in the way of holding their own meetings from MBC headquarters to 00: 10 members of MBC headquarters, 125 members of MBC headquarters and 10 members of the 19-27-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-14-3-3-200-3-14-2-10-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-2-3-1000

B. The co-principal committed by Defendant ○○ and Park ○○

On March 2, 2009, 165 members of 9 places of business, such as SBS, CBS, Daegu CBS, Jeju CBS, Jeonbukbuk, Daejeon CBS, Daejeon CBS, Daejeon CBS, Daejeon CBS, Cheongju CBS, Cheongju CBS, Cheongju CBS, and Cheongju CBS, by force, refused to provide labor and interfere with the business of SBS, CBS, and Homan by force.

3. The fact of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

A. Defendant Maximum ○○

On February 26, 2009, Defendant ○○ decided to hold a meeting of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee at the Press Labor Assistance Office 18th floor in Jung-gu, Seoul on February 26, 2009, to hold a meeting of the Press Committee on the 28th of the same month, and the head of the Press Labor Relations Organization Kim○-○ was planning and preparing the above meeting.

On February 28, 2009, from around 00 to 18:10 on February 28, 2009, Defendant ○○○ and the above Kim○○ held the 'Who-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho's conference

Accordingly, the defendant ○○○ did not report to the chief of the competent police station in collusion with the above Kim○○.

B. The co-principal committed by Defendant ○○ and Park ○○

On December 23, 2008, Defendant 2, 2008, ○○○ and Park ○○○ attended a meeting of the Press Labor-Management Emergency Countermeasure Committee on the 18th floor held in the Press Labor-Management Steering Committee of Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, to hold a general strike on December 26, 2008, and decided to hold a resolution on the general strike and the same day strike, and the head of the Press Labor-Management Organization Kim ○○ prepared and prepared the above meeting.

From around 00 to December 26, 2008, Defendant 1 and 70 members of the press union in front of the Korean National Bank in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, held a 'Wol Card' resolution on the general strike of press union members' by preparing 10 cards and 50 diskettes from around 00 to December 14, 200. On the same day, at around 16:5, at around 16:55, Defendant 1 and 200 participants of the meeting as well as 200 meters away from the front of the Korean National Bank in front of the above Korean National Bank, which is a place where the assembly is reported.

As a result, the place, method, etc. of the assembly reported in collusion with the above Kim○-○.

An act clearly deviates from the scope.

『 2010고합465 [ 피고인 최ㅇㅇ, 이ㅇㅇ, 노ㅇㅇ, 정○○, 양○○, 김ㅇㅇ이 피고인 최○○는 언론노조 위원장이고, 피고인 이○○은 언론노조 MBC본부장이고 , 피고인 노○○은 언론노조 YTN지부장이고, 피고인 정○○은 언론노조 EBS지부장이고 , 피고인 양○○은 언론노조 CBS지부장이고, 피고인 김○○는 언론노조 수석부위원장이 언론노조는 대기업과 신문사의 방송사 지분 소유 허용 등을 골자로 하는 방송법 개정안 등 한나라당이 추진하는 언론관계법안이 정부와 한나라당의 언론장악 음모에 기한 것으로 언론의 독립과 공공성을 훼손하는 것이라고 주장하며, 2008. 10. 21. 부터 같은 달 23. 까지 언론노조 산하 본부 · 지부 · 분회별로 ' 조 · 중 · 동 방송을 위한 신문방송 겸영 허용 반대, 지상파방송 장악을 위한 방송법시행령 개악 반대, 중소 · 지역신문 다죽이는 신문 관련법안 개악 반대, YTN 낙하산 구○○ 반대와 공정방송 사수 ' 등을 목적으로 하는 총파업 찬반투표를 실시하여 언론노조산하 94개 사업장의 조합원 9, 815명 중 8, 446명이 투표에 참여하여 6, 926명의 찬성 ( 투표 대비 찬성률 82 % ) 으로 파업을 결의하였다 .

After that, on December 23, 2008, Hanna Party appears to have the position that the National Assembly Culture and Sports Tourism Communications Commission will present its proposal, such as the Broadcasting Act and the Newspapers Act, within the National Assembly session, and on December 23, 2008, the members of the Press Labor Relations Committee including Defendant ○○○○ et al. held an emergency countermeasure committee meeting at the 18th floor press conference room located in Jung-gu, Seoul on December 23, 2008 and decided to enter the general strike for the purpose of preventing the National Assembly from presenting its proposal on the Press Relations Act from 00:0 to 00, and Defendant ○○○○ was 26:00 on December 23, 2008, Defendant 26:0 Doz. members refused all news reports and press reports except those related to the Press Act, and Doz. 26:00 p.m., Do 26:00 p.m. were opened in accordance with the press guidelines.

Accordingly, during the 8-day period from December 26, 2008 to January 7, 2009, the media labor union started a primary strike of the size of 18 members of the 1,400 members of the MBC headquarters centered on the MBC headquarters for 8-day period, but suspended a strike upon agreement on the direction of handling the bill in the press-related laws.

Afterward, in order for Korea-Japan to prevent the National Assembly from submitting a bill related to the press, such as the Broadcasting Act, to the National Assembly on February 25, 2009: from 00 to February 15, 2009, the Ministry of Culture and Sports and Tourism decided on February 26, 2009 to resume the general strike for the purpose of preventing the National Assembly from submitting a bill related to the media, including the Broadcasting Act, while the National Assembly of Korea was holding a resolution of the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ' of the 'the '' and the 'the 'the 'the 'the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the '

The former members of the press union enter into the general strike with 06:00 26:00 p.m. 26:00 p.m., each of the headquarters, branch, and sub-chapter 26 and 27 shall convene a general meeting of the members of the union during the period of 26:26 days and 27. The resolution for the participation in the general strike is made. . . 15-p. of the total labor union guidelines for the press union, the contents of which are “15-p.m.,” was directed to the headquarters and branch under its control.

Accordingly, during the period from February 26, 2009 to March 3, 2009, the media labor union has been engaged in the second strike of the size of 1,200 members of the 22 business places centering on the MBC headquarters for 4 days, but suspended the strike due to the agreement on the schedule of treatment within the press-related laws.

4. Defendant 2: (a) the temporary National Assembly started on June 26, 2009, which started on June 26, 2009, started with Defendant 1’s largest ○○○ or ○○○○○’s three strike; (b) Defendant 2, despite his refusal to act as a member of the Democratic Party; (c) on the same day, was placed on June 26, 200, and all members of the National Assembly were staying in the atmosphere. The former members of the National Assembly, who want to work as a member of the Press Committee, was urged to work as a general strike and to work for the first time. The former members of the National Assembly, who announced the 7th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 7th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 3th anniversary of the 3th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the Press Act; (c.) Defendant 1) the 2nd of the 7th of the 3th of the 2nd of the Press.

The term "labor dispute" means a dispute situation arising out of disagreements between a trade union and an employer or employers' association with respect to the determination of working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment. In order to be an industrial action of a trade union, an industrial action shall be conducted under the premise of disagreements with an employer with respect to the determination of working conditions, and an industrial action shall not be conducted for the purpose of opposing the amendment of the law that has no possibility

Nevertheless, the defendant ○○○ and Lee○-○ conspiredd to go to the general press for the purpose of preventing the amendment of the Act on Press Relations as above, with 1,00 members of the press union and 1,00 members of the press union.

A. From 00 to 18:00 on July 21, 2009, 200 members refused to provide labor in accordance with the above general strike business guidelines, from 10:00 to 10 on the same day, 15:30 to 17:0 on July 21, 2009, 200 to 18:0 on the following day: (a) from 10:00 to 15:30 to 20:0, members of the 14 business places, including MBC companies and 12 local affiliated companies, and TBC Daegu Broadcasting, etc., were allowed to participate in the strike in the manner of participating in the third general strike of labor union union members held before the Kodo-dong National Bank; and (b) from 14:0 to 20 to 14:0,026 to participate in the strike by participating in the strike, etc. in the strike by force.

B. On July 22, 2009: From 00 to 18:00, the MBC main company located in the business territory in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government refused to provide labor in accordance with the above general strike guidelines; from 00: 11:00 to 18:0, the company held its own assembly on the LBC main company project from 11:00 to 13:00 to 18:0, and the company participated in the strike in the manner of participating in the resolution of the general strike held before the KWF; and as indicated in the attached list of crimes (the current status of the business establishment participating in the strike on July 22, 2007).

C. From 00 to 18:00 on July 23, 2009: MBC head office and 15 members of the members of the 15 business places, including MBC head office and 14 local heat companies, who refuse to provide labor in accordance with the above general strike guidelines; from 00 to 18:10 on the same day, 16:00 to 15:00 on the same day, she shall participate in the strike in the manner of participating in the "an illegal proxy voting and a competition declaring invalidity of revoting" held before the Credit Industry Bank; and (3) The list of crimes in attached Form 15, such as MBC head office and 15 members of the 15 business places, including 14 local heats, who belong to the above assembly, refused to provide labor and participated in the total strike by participating in the above assembly.

D. From 00 to 18:00 on July 24, 2009: 00, 200 members refused to provide labor in accordance with the above general strike business guidelines; from 00 to 11:0 on the same day, 15:20 to 16:35, 200 to 15:00 on the following day: (a) from 11:00 to 16:0, 25:00 to 16:0 to 35, 200 to participate in the strike in the manner of participating in the strike, such as the "illegal voting" held in the presence of an industrial bank in the Sododong Industrial Bank; and (b) A list of crimes in attached Form IV (4), such as MBC copies, 14 local affiliates, 194 members belonging to the above business establishment, and 15:0 participation in the above assembly by force.

5. Defendant ○○ was in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on July 2, 2009: from 00 to 16:40 on July 22, 2009, Defendant ○○, along with approximately 500 members of the press union and members of non-governmental organizations, entered the National Assembly for the purpose of preventing him from handling the press bill in front of the parliamentary book of the National Assembly. Defendant ○○ held a meeting against the amendment of the Press-Related Act, such as preventing the opposition to the amendment of the Press-Related Act, such as “the act of destroying the press law,” etc.

As a result, Defendant ○○ opened an outdoor assembly at a place within 100 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly building.

6. On July 22, 2009, Defendant 00, 100, 200, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200: (a) from 00 to 16:40 on July 22, 2009, Defendant 200, 300, 200, 200: (b) from 00 to 50 members of the press union, etc.; and (c) from 00 to 16:0 on July 22, 2009, Defendant 200 to 200 to 200, 300 to 200,

As a result, Defendant ○○○, Nowon○, Ma○○, Yang ○○, and Kim ○○ participated in an outdoor assembly at a place within 100 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly building.

7. On July 22, 2009, at around 22, 2009: around 25, Defendant ○○○, Labor○○, Labor○○, Labor○○○, and Kim○○○○○○○○○○○○, and Kim Jong-○, demanded the members of the National Assembly, etc., who were members of the National Assembly before the main session of the National Assembly, to refrain from participating in the voting of the draft press-related laws and regulations, and prevented the National Assembly guards in those areas from putting the National Assembly members of the National Assembly, leaving the National Assembly ○○○, leaving the National Assembly members of the National Assembly, and booming the National Assembly members of the National Assembly, and assaulting the National Assembly ○○○○ and the National Assembly members of the National Assembly, who patrol him.

As a result, Defendant ○○○, Labor○○, Labor○○, Labor○○○○, and Kim○○○ jointly with 30 members of the press, etc. to interfere with legitimate execution of duties concerning the legislative activities of ○○○, a member of the National Assembly, and interfere with legitimate execution of duties concerning the security of National Assembly security of National Assembly security guards.

8. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion) by Defendant ○○○, Lee○, Lee○, ○○, Ma○○, Ma○○○, and Kim○-○

Around 00 on July 22, 2009, Defendant ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○○, and Kim○○○○○○, along with members of the press unions, etc., of the National Assembly. Around 13:0, around 14:24, Defendant 1 infringed upon the National Assembly, a building that was managed by the State, in collaboration with the members of the said press unions, on the part of the members of the National Assembly.

9. Defendant 200, including the union members and the staff members of a democratic party and democratic labor party, on July 14, 2009 from 30 to 16:0 on July 22, 2009, the person who prevented the amendment of the Press Relations Act by using microphones, in which approximately 200 persons, including the union members and the union members of the press at the front of the plenary session of the National Assembly, made a speech or sent a vote on the outside of the plenary session of the plenary session where the plenary session of the plenary session of the National Assembly was put on the second floor of the plenary session where the plenary session of the plenary session was put on voting.

Accordingly, the defendant ○○○, ○○, ○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○○, and Ma○○○○, jointly with members of the press unions, was working in and around the National Assembly for the purpose of obstructing deliberations by the National Assembly

"2010 Ma466" [this 10.0 o. o. o. o. o. o is the head of the press labor union MBC.

On April 29, 2008, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office conducted the investigation into complaints such as defamation related to the PD pocketbooks (whether or not U.S. beef and safe from ○○ Disease? hereinafter "the Seoul Central District Court intended to obtain and execute a search and seizure warrant and a warrant of arrest against four productions in the Seoul Central District Court. The members of the media labor union, including Defendant ○○, decided to stop the execution of the above warrant.

피고인 이○○은 2009. 4. 22. 09 : 12경 MBC 본사 현관 앞에서 서울중앙지방검찰청검사 박○○, 김○○, 유○○ 및 수사관 37명이 위 영장을 집행하기 위하여 본사 건물 내로 들어가려고 하자 조합원 100여 명과 함께 " PD수첩 사수하여 언론탄압 막아내자 , 검찰의 표적수사 PD수첩 사수하자 " 등의 피켓을 들거나 구호를 외치면서 서로 팔짱을 낀 채 스크럼을 짜고 막아서서 일부 수사관들을 몸으로 밀쳐내는 등 같은 날 10 : 47경까지 검사와 수사관들의 진입을 저지하였다 .

As a result, the defendant Lee ○-○ used 100 members to assault the above public officials of the prosecution to interfere with legitimate execution of criminal investigation.

On July 22, 2009, Defendant 2010 Ma467 [the largest ○○ is the chairman of the press union and Defendant 1 is the victim New ○○ is the member of the Korean National Assembly. On July 22, 2009, Defendant 2 participated in the deliberation and voting on the amendment bill of the Act on the Freedom and Functions of Newspapers, etc., Broadcasting Act, Internet Multimedia Broadcasting Act, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the " Media Act bill") at the plenary session located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Yeongdeungpo-gu.

On July 22, 2009, Defendant ○○ was not aware of whether the victim made a vote on behalf of the National Assembly member by arbitrarily pressing an electronic voting monitoring method installed in the seat of another Council member at the time of the National Assembly’s voting on the media bill, and whether there was a video containing the victim’s face of such act.

A. On July 22, 2009, Defendant ○○○, in the process of voting on the media bill, at the seat of another member of the National Assembly by approximately 300 reporters and citizens, prior to the president of the National Assembly located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant 2 injured the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by publicly stating that it is “in the process of voting on the media bill, ○○○ Council members cast a proxy vote on behalf of other members of the National Assembly.”

B. On July 22, 2009, around 3,00 reporters and members of the Korean Democratic Trade Union Federation were heard by the Defendant ○○○○○○ Council on behalf of the other members of the other members of the Republic of Korea, in the process of voting on the media bill, when the members of the Korean Democratic Trade Union were heard, and there was a screen image containing the face of the other members of the other members of the Republic of Korea, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts.

C. On July 22, 2009, Defendant ○○○ prepared a statement to the effect that “In the process of voting on the media bill at the office of the Korea Press Workers’ Union located in Jung-gu Seoul Central Press Center 1802, 1802, new ○○○ Assembly members cast a vote by proxy at the seat of other members of the other members of the Korea Press Union,” and then, by distributing it to each media company by facsimile, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts.

"2010 high-level 468" [Defendant Lee Dong-○, Yellow ○, New ○, Lee ○○, Lee Dong-○, and this Defendant Lee Dong-○ is affiliated with the cultural broadcasting of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, on May 1, 1991, and works in current cultural stations, etc., while serving in the headquarters of the Press Labor-Help MBC (the term of office from March 3, 2009 to February 2, 2011).

28. The defendant ○○ is working as the chief vice-chairperson of the press labor union MBC headquarters while working in the news coverage department, etc. on April 10, 1990 after entering the Gwangju Cultural Broadcasting and working in the news coverage department, etc. on April 10, 1990. The defendant ○○ is working as the secretary general of the press labor union and MBC headquarters, who is employed in the production technology department, etc. on November 1, 1995 while working in the production technology department, etc., and the defendant ○○ is working as the director general of the video coverage department, etc. on December 1, 1996 while working in the news coverage department, etc. on December 1, 1996. The defendant ○○ is working as the director general of the press labor union and MBC headquarters as a director general of the press labor union, etc. while working in the news reporting department, etc. on December 1, 1996.

12. The enforcement department of the Press Workers' Group (hereinafter referred to as the "Visits") of this ○○, Yellow ○, New ○, Lee ○○, and So-called the Defendant’s interference with business due to the overall strike of ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○○○, and annually, constitutes the Defendant’s interference with business. On February 8, 2010, the enforcement department of the Broadcasting Culture Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Party ○○,”) signed a resolution on February 1, 2010 to select and appoint ○, ○, ○○, and ○, and ○○, as the head of the production headquarters selected and appointed ○, ○, and ○, as the head of the production headquarters, against 19 regional media labor union members, including the head of the production headquarters, to participate in the 19-regional MBC MBC (hereinafter referred to as “non-Subrogation”)’s interference with business, and the details of 10-C and 410-7.

After that, on February 26, 2010, when a visiting person appointed Kim ○ as the president of the new MBC, the non-Subrogation executives, including Defendant Lee ○-○, Yellow ○○, New ○○, Lee ○○, and Many ○○, cannot recognize the president of the Kim ○○. From March 2 of the same year, from March 2 of the same year to March 2, 2010, approximately 100 members of the National Assembly were mobilized in front of the Kim ○○, the president of Kim ○, the president of the Yellow ○○, and the head of the Yellow ○ news Report Headquarters, etc., collectively stop working

22. From 22. Along with members of MBC labor union, a member of the MaBC labor union demanded a criminal complaint against the retirement of the president of Kim○○○ and the president of Kim○○○○, on the ground of his/her interview, on the ground of his/her interview, he/she occupied the 10-story president's 10-story president's 10-story president's 10-story president's 10

On April 3, 2010, on the ground that the president of Kim Jong-○ was appointed as the vice president on April 3, 2010, non-Subrogation executives including Defendant Lee ○○, Yellow ○, NewO, Lee OO, and Lee ○○ on April 5, 2010 shall decide to start up to the general strike for the purpose of the withdrawal of appointment of the vice president and criminal complaint against the president of Kim ○○○○○○○○○○○ on April 5, 2010, and the Do National Press MBC headquarters shall start up to the general strike from April 5, 206 in accordance with the decision of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee. All members shall cease to engage in all the affairs during the Do governor strike and act in accordance with the Non-Subrogation Guidelines. After the opening of the general strike, members' action guidelines and detailed details shall comply with the Non-Subrogation Guidelines.

Seoul Headquarters and 19 regional MBC branches, and posted them in the severe weather alerts to encourage its members to participate.

The term "labor dispute" refers to a dispute state caused by disagreements between a trade union and an employer or employers' association with respect to the determination of working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment. In order to be an industrial action of a trade union, it shall be premised on disagreements with an employer with respect to the determination of working conditions. In order to be an industrial action of a trade union, it shall be subject to the premise of disagreements with an employer with respect to the determination of working conditions, and regardless of the fact that the industrial action cannot be conducted without going through the procedure of mediation by the Labor Relations Commission prescribed by the Act or without going through the procedure of mediation by the Labor Relations Commission.

Accordingly, Defendant ○○○ shall exercise overall control over the strike, Defendant ○○ shall encourage the participation in the strike of local MBC labor, Defendant ○○ shall exercise overall control over the strike affairs, Defendant ○○ shall establish and implement the strike program, Defendant ○○ shall take charge of public relations activities, such as production of a severe weather report, Defendant ○○ shall encourage the participation of its members in the strike as Vice-Chairperson of the news report, arts, production technology, video art, and advertising sector, respectively. ○○○ and ○○○ are the Director General of the Overseas Cooperation Bureau and Policy Bureau of Korea, and the Director General of the Press Labor Assistance Bureau and the Director General of the Policy Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Director General of the Organization share their roles to encourage the participation of local MBC labor.

Accordingly, on April 5, 2010, 507 members of the Korea-Do MBC headquarters were refused to provide labor in group, such as leaving the office or failing to perform the duties necessary for the broadcasting set by each party in accordance with the general strike guidelines. On the same day, around 10:00, MBC headquarters held a general appearance in attendance at the office, and held a meeting for each sector at around 14:00 and participated in the strike by holding discussions.

In addition, from April 7, 2010, the 19 regional branches of the Press Labor Union MBC headquarters refused to collectively broadcast production in accordance with the 'total strike guidelines' under the direction of Defendant Lee ○, Yellow ○, New ○, Lee ○○, Lee ○○, and ○○○○○○○○. On the same day, 528 members of the above regional branches actively participated in the instant strike, such as participating in the resolution meeting held at the MaBC headquarters's South MaBC headquarters and the candlelight culture.

As such, Defendant Lee ○-○, Yellow ○, New ○, Lee ○, Lee ○○, and Lee ○○○, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (1) from April 5, 2010 to May 13, 201, instigates all union members to participate in the strike by holding a similar assembly as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (1) or by inducing them to participate in the strike through a special strike of strike, etc., on an average of approximately 1,00 members of the MBC headquarters and the 19 regional MBC branch offices collectively refused to produce broadcasting and participate in an assembly, such as a strike resolution, and to develop a publicity for supporting the strike of labor.

As a result, in collusion with ○○○, ○○, Y○, ○○, ○○, ○○, Ma○○○, Ma○○○, Ma○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○, in collusion with Na○○○○, 6 regular news report programs, such as ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, and ○○○, ○○, and ○○○, have interfered with the business of producing, organizing, and transmitting MaBC’s broadcasts by force, including ○○, ○○, ○, ○○, and ○○○, and ○○○, and ○○, a victim corporation’s cultural broadcast program.

13. The Defendant’s non-Subrogation executives, including this ○○, yellow ○, New ○, ○○, and ○○○○○’s attendance at work. The Defendant’s non-Subrogation executives, including this ○○, yellow ○, New ○, ○, and ○○○, are on April 2010.

5. In the course of entering the general strike, the appointment of the president of ○○○○○, the withdrawal of the appointment of the president of Kim○○○○○○○○○, the criminal complaint against the president of Kim○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was

Accordingly, around 08 on April 20, 2010: around 30:0 on April 20, 2010, non-Subrogation executives, including the Defendant Lee ○○, Yellow ○, New ○○, Lee ○○, and Lee ○○○, who called the victim, before the headquarters head office located in the Dong-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, called “one hundred members of the association who want to enter the headquarters to work within the headquarters,” on the face of the opening, Kim ○, Kim ○, who called the “waterer,” and the “Seoul ○, Kim ○, Kim ○, Kim ○, Kim ○, Kim ○, and so on, the victims were able to keep in mind at work by blocking the victims from working in a way such as blocking their fronts.

As a result, in collusion with the above Na○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, and ○○○○○○○○, in collusion with the above Na○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○, from April 20 to April 28, 2010, Defendant ○○ and the ○○○○○○○○, as indicated in the attached Table of Crimes (2), attempted to enter the MaBC’s office building into the MaBC, including around 10 members of the association, by blocking her street, thereby interfering with the victims’ MaBC work by way

"2010 Ma470" [the ○○○ and the ○○○○ is the Deputy Director of the Seoul Regional Headquarters in Seoul, and the ○○○ is the director of the press labor union MBC headquarters negotiation dispute.

14. Defendant’s grandchildren ○

A. Points of general traffic obstruction

On May 6, 2008, civil society organizations with 1,500 U.S. beef imports organized the National Countermeasure Council (hereinafter referred to as the "Countermeasures Council") against the import of the U.S. beef in the U.S. to systematically oppose the full import of U.S. beef.

From May 6, 2008, the countermeasures conference held a candlelight meeting, which is an outdoor assembly at night, from May 6, 2008, every day, and from May 24, 2008, since the candlelight meeting, the countermeasures conference tried to move into the Cheongdae River by holding a candlelight meeting every day, which is an outdoor assembly from May 24, 2008.

On the other hand, on June 21, 2008, the government announced the results of additional negotiations on the expansion of import of U.S. beef, and on June 26, 2008, published the import sanitary terms of U.S. beef in the Official Gazette, the countermeasures conference continued to hold a candlelight demonstration by asserting that it was not an additional negotiation but a candlelight demonstration.

On June 28, 200, a maximum of 800 persons, such as the metal labor union, Seoul Southern Site Association, etc., from around 50 to around 50, 2008: from around 50, the president of Jung-gu in Seoul, the president of Jung-gu, and the president of the ○○○○○, the president of the Seoul Jung-gu, prepared flag card, such as "each flag's demand for unregular workers," i.e., the Democratic Labor Party, the multilateral thickness, and the internal blagbing, etc., and held the "Plag of the first-day war against the 1st century in commemoration of 1040, and carried out one time more than eight times in front of the Korean one through the Korean one.

At around 15: 50 on the same day, 80 demonstration units, which occupy the front lane of the Korean New Airport located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, were requested to voluntarily dissolve, 15:55 on the same day, and the first dispersion order was issued at around 16:0 on the same day, and the demonstration units continued to hold a demonstration due to a power unit, etc., the head of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's guard division took the second dispersion order and the third dispersion order was conducted at around 16:05 on the same day, but the demonstration units continued to hold a demonstration.

Defendant 15:42 to 16:08, Defendant 2, along with the participants in the assembly, attempted to enter the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea with the flag of the Seoul Central Headquarters in front of the foregoing Korean Peninsula while occupying six-lanes prior to the Korean one. Some participants engaged in the assembly at the assembly, Doctrine of the police officer who prevented him from entering the Doctrine as his arms. The participants suggested relief, such as provokinging back, leaving off, withdrawing notice, or renegotiationing the Doctrine of the police officer.

As a result, Defendant ○○ conspired with 800 participants in the assembly to make it impossible for Defendant ○○ to communicate a vehicle near the Korean one.

B. The press labor union in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act is a primary strike between December 26, 2008 and January 7, 2009, and the first strike from February 26, 2009 to February 2009.

3.3. Around July 2009, the second strike was conducted between the two parties, and on the other hand, on the grounds that there was no progress in the negotiations on the handling of the bill related to the press, and on July 2009, Nara has decided to impose a punishment for "the collective strike for the opposition to the amendment of the Act related to the press, such as demanding the Speaker of the National Assembly for ex officio commercial circumstances," while the third strike was conducted from July 21, 2009 to July 24, 2009, but during the strike, the "the strike for the opposition to the amendment of the Act related to the press, such as holding a strike at a lower level in the vicinity of the National Assembly and a candlelight assembly at night."

Accordingly, on July 22, 2009: from 00 to 16:40 on July 22, 2009, Defendant Soh○ participated in an assembly against the amendment of the Act on Press Relations in the presence of approximately 500 members of the press union, non-governmental organization members, etc. in front of the principal library of the National Assembly located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and some participants attempted to sporadity, to enter the principal library of the National Assembly, or to abolish the Act on Press Records, etc.

It was out of relief.

Accordingly, Defendant ○○ participated in an outdoor assembly at a place within 100 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly building.

C. The point of obstruction of performance of official duties and concealment of public goods

On July 22, 2009: from around 53 to 17:00, Defendant ○○ et al. moved to the Industrial Bank of Korea along the front line of the National Assembly’s Madern Capital Building in front of the Madern Capital, in order to attend the National Assembly’s Domination of the Political Law, Defendant ○○ et al. used the scene of the demonstration, and Defendant ○○ used the scene of the demonstration and used the scene of the demonstration to use the camera Kim○, et al., Defendant ○, et al., Defendant ○, et al. used the scene of the demonstration and used the scene of the demonstration to assault Defendant ○○, et al., and Defendant ○, et al., the police station used the scene of the demonstration to use the scene of the demonstration, and continuously led the participants in his name-free demonstration to wear the clothes or body of Kim○○, leading approximately 30 meters or more in the direction of the assembly.

As such, while being towed by Kim ○○, the participants of the demonstration shall take the camera and remove pictures “at the same time,” the participants of the demonstration laid off the camera with the camera chips on which the camera chips recorded at the scene of the demonstration were loaded in order to make the camera and the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

Accordingly, Defendant ○○○ interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties on the field evidence of the demonstration conducted by the above Kim○○, and at the same time, in collusion with the above-mentioned persons, concealed the amount equivalent to KRW 8,206,00,00 of the meti chip market price, which is a product used by the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency.

15. Defendant Shin ○○

A. On July 22, 2009, Defendant New○ participated in an assembly against the amendment of the Act on Press Relations in the presence of approximately 500 members of the press union, non-governmental organizations, etc. in the presence of approximately 500 members of the National Assembly located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, from around 00 to around 16:40, and some participants attempted to enter the National Assembly as the main part of the Assembly, or carried out relief such as the destruction of the Press Act.

As a result, Defendant New○ participated in an outdoor assembly at a place within 100 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly building.

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint arrest);

On July 22, 2009: from around 53 to 17:00, Defendant New ○○ and Press labor union members, civic groups members, etc. moved to the National Assembly along the lane in front of the National Assembly’s Modern Industrial Bank of Korea in order to attend the Madern Capital Assembly, the above Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modern Modon. The above Modern Modon used the demonstration site, which was sealed by the police station, such as where the Madon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon Modon.

As a result, the defendant New ○○ arrested Kim○ in collaboration with the participants in the above-mentioned demonstration.

『 2010고합527 [ 피고인 신ㅇㅇ이 16. 피고인 신○○는 MBC 노동조합 사무처장을 맡고 있는 자인바, 옥외집회나 시위를 주최하려는 자는 48시간 이내에 관할 경찰서장에게 사전신고서를 제출하여야 한다 .

On March 18, 2010, 14: 55 to 15: 13 Seoul Jongno-gu Cheongdong Cheongdong Office, with 20 members of MaBC Union members, held 'Woo-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao', Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong'.

Summary of Evidence

As to the facts constituting the crime of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the holding [2010 Gohap463]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant ○○, Park ○, Park ○, Park ○○, and the last ○○.

1. A written protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant ○○○, ○○○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, and Kim○;

1. Statement of the police statement on ○○○;

1. A written accusation;

1. Reporting on the current status of places of business participating in the press labor union strike, and reporting on respective information status;

1. Each investigation report (Attachment of the press union report, Attachment of the introduction of the press union report, the main text of the press union's culture and broadcasting headquarters, the attachment of a letter of opinion on the press union and a name, the attachment of the first general press union, the attachment of a letter of opinion on the press union, the attachment of the current status of the business, the attachment of materials on the press union, the attachment of materials on the press union, the attachment of materials on the press union, the attachment of materials on viewing rate, the attachment of materials on the press union, the attachment of materials on the press union and its affiliated organizations' total press union, the attachment of materials on the press union and its affiliated organizations' union strike, the submission of reports, such as

1. A photographer related to the press union business;

The facts constituting the crime of Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the holding [2010, 465]

1. Each legal statement made by the witness ○○, ○○○, and ○○○;

1. Each legal statement of the defendant ○○, Lee ○, Lee ○, Lee ○○, Ma○, Ma○○, and Kim ○○

1. Results of the verification of video CDs in this Court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant ○○, Lee ○, Lee ○, Lee ○, Lee ○○, Lee Jong-○, Yang-○, and Kim ○;

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement concerning ○○○;

1. Each police statement on the Red○○, Kim○, and Kim○○;

1. Each investigation report (in addition to a report on information situation, arrangement of situation by time zone, acquisition of the National Assembly guard situation, intrusion by the participants' access to the National Assembly through the windows of the National Assembly, access attempt by the participants of the National Assembly, access to the National Assembly, access by the participants of the Assembly, demonstration by the participants who are restricted from access, verification of the person in charge of assembly report, intrusion by the National Assembly on July 22, 2007, attaching data on the press union's intrusion on the press union on July 22, 200, attaching data on the press union's intrusion on the third general frequency of the press union, the attachment of personal participation on July 21, 200, attaching data on the press union's major names, news reports, internal news articles and press union's union labor reports, attachment of press reports, etc. on July 22 to July 22, 2007, submission of reports on the current status of damage to the press union's labor union, etc.;

1. Five video CDs, documentary evidence photographs, and one CD;

Concerning the crime of No. 10 [2010, 466]

1. Copy of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant ○○;

1. A written statement of Kim○-○, Jeong○-○, Lee Jong-○, Lee Jong-○, Lee Dong-○, and Lee Dong-○;

1. Complaint;

1. Each investigation report (attached to an investigation report, including attachment of an unexecution warrant, a search and seizure warrant for the headquarters, a search and seizure warrant for the head office of MBC and a report on impossibility of execution of a warrant of arrest and seizure against the manufacturer of the PD pocket book, accompanying a video report, interfering with the execution of a warrant of search and seizure verification, and accompanying a press report concerning the fact that the suspect Lee○○ and the head office of MBC were committed against the

As to the crime of No. 11 [2010, 467]

1. Legal statement of the witness ○○;

1. The defendant ○○’s partial statement

1. Results of the verification of video CDs in this Court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of a suspect by the prosecution against the defendant ○○○, Park ○, and Park ○;

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement concerning ○○;

1. Complaint;

1. Each investigation report (to attach some of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, to confirm the logs of electronic voting, and to verify the records thereof);

1. The National Assembly’s broadcast video CDs and the National Assembly ENG camera compilations;

As to the facts constituting the crime of Articles 12 and 13 of the Judgment [2010 Gohap468]

1. Each legal statement of the witness, ○○○ and ○○○;

1. Each legal statement of the Defendant ○○, Yellow ○, New ○, ○○○, and ○○○○, respectively.

1. Each protocol concerning the suspect interrogation of the prosecution against the defendant ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, and ○○○, and ○○○,

1. Statement of each police statement on ○○○ or ○○○;

1. Complaint;

1. Each investigation report (receiving a complaint, submitting a copy of the report on occurrence of the accident of the case to the guard company, submitting a special report on the total frequency, attaching a report on the strike, attaching a report on the strike, summary of the strike, and news report materials, attaching a report on the strike, attaching the report details and news materials, attaching the current status of participation in the strike, attaching a part of participation in the attendance at each date, attaching a general, situation mail address, and a special emergency report after returning to strike, etc.

On the facts constituting the crime of No. 14 and 15 of the holding [2010 Gohap470]

1. Each legal statement made by the witness Kim-○, the lowest○○, and the Cho Il-○;

1. Each of the Defendant’s grandchildren, ○○, and ○○’s partial statements

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant ○○ or ○○;

1. Each protocol of prosecutorial statement concerning Kim○-○ and Cho Il-○;

1. Statement of each police statement on Kim○-○ and the largest ○○;

1. Seizure records;

1. Written estimate;

1. Each investigation report (Attachment of Information Stenographic Materials, Attachment of Evidence, Information Status Report, etc., Attachment of List of Persons who Conduct Illegal Demonstration and Copy of the judgment, etc. on June 28, 208, Attachment of Evidential Materials, Report on Information Status, and Copy of Statement of Statement of Arrest of Police Officers of Unlawful Demonstration on June 28, 208);

1. Photographs (the current status of kidnapping, taking equipment, etc. of documentary evidence), photographs of the situation related to the official business administration ex officio under the Press Relations Act, kidnapping of documentary evidence, and taking of equipment;

Criminal facts of No. 16 of the Judgment [2010 Gohap527]

1. Partial statement of Defendant New ○○

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against ○○○ of the defendant;

1. To request an investigation of an illegal assembly or demonstration;

1. Report of investigation (specific suspect);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant Maximum ○○

【【2010Gohap463】

Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with business), Articles 22(2) and 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of holding an outdoor assembly not reported), Articles 22(3) and 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of holding an outdoor assembly not reported)

[2010Gohap465]

Articles 314(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 23 subparag. 1, Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the point at which an outdoor assembly is prohibited) of the Criminal Act, Articles 136(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act (the point at which an outdoor assembly is prohibited), Article 2(2) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point at which an assembly is held) of the Criminal Act, Articles 138 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point at which the president of the National Assembly consents to the resolution of the National Assembly)

[2010Gohap467]

Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act (Defamation)

(b) Defendant Park ○-○: [The act of clearly deviating from the scope of the reported place, method, etc.] Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 22(3) and 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the act of obviously deviating from the reported place, method, etc.)

(c) Defendant fixed ○○○: [2010 Gohap463] Articles 314(1) and 30(Interference with Business) of the Criminal Act; Defendant Maximum ○○○: [2010 Gohap463] Articles 314(1) and 30(Interference with Business) of the Criminal Act

E. Defendant ○○ (2010, 465)

Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 23 subparag. 3 and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the point where an outdoor assembly is prohibited) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 2(2) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point where an outdoor assembly is prohibited), Articles 138 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point where an assembly head gives consent to the lawsuit of the National Assembly)

【2010Gohap466】

Articles 136(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties)

[2010Gohap468]

Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business)

(f) Defendant Nowon-○: [The participation in the assembly of an outdoor assembly prohibited place] under Article 23 subparag. 3, Article 11 subparag. 1, Article 136(1), and Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act (the points of obstruction of performance of official duties), Article 2(2), and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the points of common intrusion), Article 138, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of consenting to the resolution of the National Assembly Chairman);

(g) Defendant Jeong-○○: [The point where an outdoor assembly is prohibited] prescribed by Article 23 subparag. 3, Article 11 subparag. 1, Article 136(1), and Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act (the point where an outdoor assembly is prohibited), Article 2(2), and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point where a joint residence is infringed), Article 138, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point where the president of the National Assembly consents to the lawsuit)

(h) Defendant Yang ○○○: [The point where an outdoor assembly is prohibited is involved in an assembly] under Article 23 subparag. 3 and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Article 2(2) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point where a joint residence is infringed); Articles 138 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point where the president of the National Assembly consents to the lawsuit)

(i) Defendant Kim ○: [The participation in the assembly of a place where an outdoor assembly is prohibited] under Article 23 subparag. 3, Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the point where an assembly of a place where an outdoor assembly is prohibited), Article 136(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point where an assembly of a place where an outdoor assembly is prohibited), Article 2(2) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point where an assembly of a person is jointly invaded), Articles 138 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point where the president of the National Assembly consents to the resolution

(j) Defendant Yellow ○: [Article 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with business]

(k) Defendant New○○

[2010Gohap468]

Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business)

[2010 Highest 470]

Article 23 Subparag. 3 and Article 11 Subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the point of participating in an assembly at a place prohibited from outdoor assembly), Article 2(2) and Article 2(1)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 276(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint arrest)

[2010Gohap527]

Articles 22(2) and 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the point of holding an outdoor assembly not reported)

(l) ○○○○○: [2010 Gohap468] Articles 314(1) and 30(Interference with Business) of the Criminal Act. Defendant’s annual ○○○○: [2010 Gohap468] Articles 314(1) and 30(Interference with Business) of the Criminal Act. Defendant’s hand ○○○: [2010 Gohap470] Articles 185 and 30(a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 23 subparag. 3 and 11 subparag. 1(c) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Articles 136(1) and (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 141(1) and 30(a) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial concurrence (Defendant ○○○, ○○, ○, ○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, ○○, and Myeon○○);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (trades of the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties of Defendant 7, ○○, ○○○, Ma○○○, and Ma○○○○ on April 22, 2009 of the judgment of the court below, and between the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties of Defendant 10 on April 22, 2009 of the judgment of the court below, between the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties of Defendant 13, the crimes of obstruction of duties of Defendant ○○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○○, and Ma○○, and

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant Maximum ○○: Selection of imprisonment

Defendant Park ○-○, Ma○, Ma○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, Ma○○○, Ma○○○○, Ma○○○, Ma○○○, Ma○○, Ma○○○, Ma○○○, and Ma○○○○: Fines ① The Defendants, who are engaged in the media, including broadcasting companies, committed each of the instant crimes for the public interest purposes of securing the fairness and independence of the media, not personal interest. ② In the crime of interference with business due to the strike of each of the instant media companies, the essential broadcasting personnel, etc. were excluded from the strike through business cooperation, etc., and each of the instant strike was conducted in a relatively peaceful way without accompanying violence. ③ July 7, 2009.

22. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. due to Intrusion upon the National Assembly (in the case of joint residence intrusion, it is necessary to consider the balance of punishment with many workers on duty who violated the Act on the Punishment of Violence, etc. (in the case of the crime of joint residence intrusion, it is necessary to consider the balance of punishment with many workers on duty who infringed without permission)

Defendant ○○: Selection of a fine for a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; and choice of imprisonment for the remaining crimes;

1. The Defendants among concurrent crimes (the Defendants)

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (in the case of Defendant ○○○○○, the addition of Article 38(1)3 of the Criminal Act)

1. Detention in a workhouse (defendant ○○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, and Do-○);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant ○○);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing are considered, including the fact that two times of a fine)

1. Confiscation (Defendant’s grandchildren ○○);

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. A provisional payment order (defendant ○○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, Ma-○, and Do-○)

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

검사의 주장에 대한 판단 ( 판시 제12의 피고인 이○○, 황○○, 신 OO, 이 ㅇㅇ, 연이 O의 총파업으로 인한 업무방해의 점에 대하여 )

The prosecutor asserts that the above obstruction of business inflicted damage on the property amounting to KRW 5.1 billion on the victim's cultural broadcasting company, including the reduction of the advertising revenue amounting to KRW 1.9 billion. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the witness's statement and the evidence submitted to the prosecutor alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, the crime of interference with business is established only when the risk of interference with business occurs as an abstract dangerous offender, and it does not require that the result of interference actually occurs. Thus, the specific amount of damages is not determined separately.

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1. As to interference with each business set forth in the holding Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 12

A. Defendant ○○, ○○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○, ○○, and defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant ○○○○, ○○○, Ga○○, Ma○○, ○○, ○○○, Ma○○○, Ma○○○, ○○○○○, and Do○○○○○○○○, all members participating in the strike, including the strike, are merely refusing to provide labor and informing the general public of the purport of the strike through assemblies and propaganda events. Therefore, this cannot be deemed to constitute “power of interference with business”. In addition, when the Act on Press Relations is enacted as it is, it cannot be deemed to constitute “power of interference with business”. In addition, if the Act on Press Relations is enacted, it would impair the public nature and independence of the media, undermine the diversity of public opinions, and also directly affect the labor environment and employment of the press workers. In particular, from April 5, 2010 to May 13 of the same year, 200 to be aimed at maintaining and improving the fair broadcast environment. This is justifiable in its purpose, and thus, it is therefore justified for each of the Defendants to be acquitted.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the act of interference with business constitutes a constituent element of the crime of interference with business (A) under Article 314 of the Criminal Act (a) refers not only to assault or intimidation, but also to the ability to suppress or confuse human freedom of expression. Labor in an industrial action is essentially subject to pressure and pressure by workers. As such, labor in essence includes an element of interference with business by force. Therefore, workers’ failure to work in group during working hours is merely merely a failure to perform the duty to provide labor unless there are other unlawful elements. However, even if refusal to provide labor is a legitimate act of dispute or a failure to interfere with the operation of ○○ by force, the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act may be established if it is not a legitimate act of dispute (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1863, Dec. 26, 2003, etc.).

(B) Therefore, even if an employee who entered into an employment contract with the employer did not provide labor in violation of his/her own contract, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a crime of interference with business, apart from the fact that the employee is liable for nonperformance of the employment contract. However, if multiple workers refuse to provide labor, such as collectively leaving the workplace or absent from work under mutual communication, and thereby causing damage to the employer’s ○○ operation of business, the act constitutes a crime of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5577, May 25, 2006, etc.) by constituting a crime of interference with business, unless the act is justified as a legitimate industrial action under the labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, unless the act is justified as a legitimate industrial action under the labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5577, May 25, 2006).

(D) According to the evidence of the above-mentioned prosecutor's submission, as stated in the facts charged in the judgment, the Defendants' act is deemed to fall under the act of obstructing the business of each broadcasting company and press organization by collectively refusing to provide labor and leaving the place of work in accordance with the Labor Relations Adjustment Guidelines of the Ministry of Broadcasting Act and other media (as indicated in the judgment below) for the purpose of preventing the amendment of the Broadcasting Act for the purpose of preventing the amendment of the Act on Press Relations, including the Act, (the interference with business of Articles 1, 2, and 4) as stated in the facts charged in the judgment, and the act of the above Defendants' act constitutes an act of refusing to provide labor collectively and leaving the place of work (the interference with business of Article 12) for the purpose of withdrawing the appointment of the Vice President of ○○○○, the withdrawal of appointment of the Vice President of the Labor Relations Adjustment Headquarters before Kim○○, and the act of the above Defendants' act constitutes an act of hindering the operation of the labor union by actively exercising multiple power, and thus, it cannot be justified if the workers refuse to be justified or justified.

(B) On the other hand, in order for a worker's industrial action to be a justifiable act under the Criminal Act, the first person shall be entitled to be the subject of collective bargaining, second, the purpose of the industrial action shall be to create autonomous negotiations between the union and the company for the improvement of working conditions. Third, when the employer has refused to conduct collective bargaining with respect to the specific demand for the improvement of working conditions of the worker, the employer shall initiate procedures such as the approval decision of the union members and the report on the occurrence of the labor dispute, unless there are special circumstances, and fourth, the means and method shall be in harmony with the employer's property rights and shall not constitute the exercise of violence (Supreme Court Decision 198Da198).

1. Supreme Court Decision 97Do588 Decided 200, Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5577 Decided May 25, 2006, etc.

C) In the instant case, each industrial action aimed at preventing the amendment of the Act on Press Relations, withdrawal of the appointment of YO president, and criminal complaint against the president of Kim ○-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ and the defense counsel’s allegation on the grounds of the above Defendants’ assertion.

2. The violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act of No. 5 of the holding, the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act of No. 6 of the holding, the 14-B of the holding, the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the 15-A of the holding.

As to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration No. 16 of the holding

A. Defendant ○○○, Lee○-○, Lee○-○, ○○, Ma○○, Yang○○, Yang○○, Kim○-○, ○○○○, ○○○○, and defense counsel’s assertion (as indicated in the holding, Nos. 5, 6, 14-B, 15-A, and 15-A) on July 22, 2009: from 00 to 16:40 on July 22, 2009, the part “convening an assembly within a 10-meter radius from the boundary of the National Assembly’s office building” was naturally organized, and thus, the part “convening an assembly” was not prepared for any purpose.

B. Defendant New○○ and his defense counsel’s assertion (related to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act No. 16 of the judgment)

Defendant ○ asserts that Defendant 1 did not hold an outdoor assembly that is subject to reporting under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Act”) only held an ordinary press conference to express his/her position in the press at the time and place stated in the facts of the crime in Article 16 of the ruling.

C. Determination

(1) The freedom of assembly has an essential function for the realization of democracy. However, if it is a freedom to express opinion in a collective form without a prior report, a situation in which it is impossible to properly express the intent to deliver it through an assembly without any prior report can be punished. Furthermore, since the exercise of the freedom of assembly entails a group action by a large number of persons, conflict may occur between participants in an assembly or third parties in light of the nature of collective action. It cannot be ruled out that serious danger may occur to the legal interests of a third party, such as serious traffic congestion caused by an assembly or infringement of peace in residence. Thus, the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that the chief of police station who received a report shall report a certain matter to the chief of the competent police station in advance (Article 6(1)) that the person who wants to hold an outdoor assembly should grasp the nature and size of the outdoor assembly in advance and protect legitimate outdoor assembly by reporting it in advance, and that the chief of the competent police station shall prepare measures to protect public safety and order through an outdoor assembly and shall not be reported in advance.

The assembly subject to guarantee and regulation under the Assembly and Demonstration Act refers to a case where a specific or unspecified number of people form a common opinion and gather temporarily at a certain place for the purpose of externally expressing it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1649, Jul. 9, 2009). Thus, in order to constitute it, the assembly must meet the requirements such as ① to be at least two or more specific or unspecified persons, ② to form a common opinion, ② to be an external expression of opinion, ③ to be a temporary expression different from the association, ④ to be a gathering at a certain place.

In addition, among the above requirements, the most important matter is ‘the purpose of the assembly', because it is essentially important in ‘the freedom of assembly', which is sufficient to ‘the common purpose trend', and the common purpose is ‘minimum internal relationship'. This common purpose trend can be distinguished from the assembly of human friendship.

(2) On July 22, 2009, comprehensively taking account of the health stand for the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and the evidence submitted to the public. Defendant 0, 00, 000, 000, 000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,00,000.

Thus, the above events held by the above Defendants with members of the press union and the non-governmental organization are held in front of the building belonging to the National Assembly for the purpose of opposing the resolution of the bill related to the press, and expressing and conveying their political opinions, and thus satisfying all the requirements of the above assembly. Thus, the above events held by the above Defendants constitute an assembly under the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

Therefore, the above part of the assertion by Defendant 0, this ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○, and defense counsel is without merit. (3) Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by Defendant ○○○ on March 18, 2010 regarding the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Defendant 1: 55-15: 13: 20, 30, 20, 20, 30, 200, 30, 200, 30, 200, 300, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300,000, 30,000,00).

Thus, although the above events held by Defendant New ○○○ was in the form of “out-to-door conference”, the above events held for the purpose of opposing the government’s MBC appearance and expressing and delivering their collective opinions in relation to the contents of the interview articles with Defendant New ○○○○○○○○ Director’s director’s monthly interview articles, and meet all the requirements of the above assembly, and if we look at the assembly articles prepared by Defendant New ○○○○○ at the time, the progress situation, and its contents, it is inevitable to view the above events as the subject of the obligation to report under the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

Therefore, Defendant New ○○ and his defense counsel’s assertion that the above events conducted by Defendant New ○○ does not constitute “an assembly” subject to the obligation to report under the Assembly and Demonstration Act is without merit.

3. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion) No. 8 of the holding

A. Defendant ○○, ○○, ○○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○, Ma○○, and his defense counsel’s assertion

On July 22, 2009: Around 24: 24, the above Defendants acknowledged the fact that they entered the building of the National Assembly Library. However, the security guards of the National Assembly were due to a biased and discriminatory exercise of their authority, such as allowing the party on duty to enter the main building through windows, which led to the misconception of the situation at the time of the presumption of consent.

B. Determination

In light of the above evidence, even if only 50 persons, including democratic party workers, entered the main line of view through the window of the National Assembly, they can be seen as having entered the main line of view, and there is no circumstance to deem that the National Assembly guard members exceptionally allowed the entry into the main line of view (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du465, Jul. 22, 2009; 258, Feb. 12: 2, 2009; 50 persons, etc., on the left side of the main line of view; 15 persons, etc., on the right side of the main line of view, attempted to do so on the 14th day, and the 14th day, etc., on the 14th day, respectively; and 30th day, etc., on the 14th day, the Defendants were not aware that the above Defendants’ act was prohibited from entering the main line of view solely on the basis that the Defendants did not have any legitimate reasons.

Therefore, the above part of the defendant ○○, ○○, ○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, and the defense counsel’s argument is without merit.

4. As to the 9th ruling's consent to the National Assembly meeting place

A. Defendant ○○, ○○, ○○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○, Ma○○, and his defense counsel’s assertion

The majority argues that the above defendants did not lead, but merely did the above defendants make a simple statement, and the staff on democratic party, etc., and that the ‘ex officio decision-making opposition' was rejected at the level of pointing out the situation of non-○ and illegal deliberation or voting at the time. At that time, the National Assembly's deliberation or voting related to the Media Act was not carried out ○○, and there was no intention to interfere with the above defendants' deliberation or voting, and there was no intention to do so.

(b) judgment;

The crime of aiding and abetting the National Assembly is established when the president of the National Assembly or a person nearby it for the purpose of interfering with or threatening the deliberation of the National Assembly. According to the evidence submitted by the above Defendants, Defendant 0, 00, 00, 00, 000, 00: 14:30 on July 22, 2009, and 16:0:0 on July 14:0, 2009, Defendant 200 members of the National Assembly, including members of the National Assembly and members of the Democratic Labor Relations Commission, and 3:00 members of the National Assembly, who were 200 members of the National Assembly, sent a speech to prevent the above Defendants from amending the Press Act by using microphones, and the above Defendants, including the above 9th ○○, 00, 00, 000 members of the National Assembly, who violated the National Assembly Act, should not be deemed to have violated the legislative purpose of the National Assembly Act, i.e., the above Defendants's ex officio and 2000.

Therefore, the above part of the defendant ○○, ○○, ○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, and the defense counsel’s argument is without merit.

5. As to the obstruction of performance of official duties by the 10th judgment

A. Defendant ○○ and his defense counsel’s assertion

당시 검찰수사관들의 영장집행에 대하여 피고인 이○○ 및 조합원들이 팔짱을 낀 채 스크럼을 짜고 막아서자 검찰수사관이 이를 깨치면서 밀고 나가려고 하였고, 이에 피고인 이○○ 및 조합원들이 대열유지 등 본능적으로 대응하는 과정에서 신체적 마찰이 있었던 것이고 적극적으로 검찰수사관의 몸을 밀친 것은 아니므로 이러한 행위는 적극적인 행동에 의한 폭행이라고 볼 수 없어 공무집행방해죄의 폭행에 해당하지 않고, 설령 폭행에 해당한다 하더라도 이는 취재원보호 등 언론의 자유를 목적으로 하는 정당한 행위로써 위법성이 없다고 주장한다 .

B. Determination

(1) The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when a assault or intimidation is made against a public official who performs his/her duties. In the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the term "Assault" means an exercise of a direct or indirect tangible force against a public official, which is within the broad meaning of the concept of assault, which is interpreted differently from the Criminal Act. However, active action against a public official who performs specific duties is in the process of performing such duties, which has an external influence on his/her intent to perform such duties and may hinder the proper execution of his/her duties by impairing his/her freedom of action.

이 사건에 돌아와 보건대, 앞서 거시한 검사 제출 증거에 의하면, 2009. 4. 22. 09 : 12경 MBC 본사 현관 앞에서 서울중앙지방검찰청 검사 박○○, 김○○, 유○○ 및 수사관 37명이 영장을 집행하기 위하여 본사 건물 내로 들어가려고 하자 피고인 이○○ 및 조합원 100여 명이 피켓을 들거나 구호를 외치면서 서로 팔짱을 낀 채 스크럼을 짜고 막아선 사실, 이에 일부 수사관들이 영장집행을 위해 MBC 본사 안으로 진입하려하자 피고인 이○○ 및 조합원들이 위 수사관들을 몸으로 밀쳐내는 등 약 6 ~ 7회 가량 몸싸움을 벌인 사실을 각 인정할 수 있는바, 피고인 이○○ 및 조합원들의 이러한 행위는 단순한 소극적인 저항이 아니라 공무를 집행하는 공무원에 대한 적극적인 행위로써 그 직무의 적정한 집행을 방해할 만한 정도에 이르렀다고 할 것이므로, 공무집행방해죄의 폭행에 해당한다고 할 것이다 .

(2) The "act which does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms, which is located behind it. Whether certain act is justified as an act that does not violate social rules, and the illegality of the act should be avoided, based on specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: First, the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; second, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act; third, the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; fourth, urgency; fifth, there is no other means or method (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). According to the above recognized facts, the prosecutor and investigator's act permitted the execution of a search and seizure warrant, etc. as legitimate exercise of force under the Criminal Procedure Act; and even if the act satisfies the requirements for protecting the interests of the defendant ○○ and its members, it is difficult to deem that the act satisfies the aforementioned requirements for protecting the interests of the defendant ○○ and its members.

(3) Ultimately, Defendant 00 and its members’ above acts constitute assault, which is a constituent element of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and cannot be deemed as constituting a justifiable act. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

6. As to the defamation of Article 11 of the holding

A. Defendant ○○ and his defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant ○○○ recognized the fact that he made a statement or written name as stated in the facts of each crime listed in Article 11 of the holding, and distributed it to the media. However, Defendant ○○○ was able to observe the voting process at the second floor of the National Assembly plenary session. At that time, Defendant ○○ was able to act on the computer monitors other than his own seat, and some visitors showed that Defendant ○○ was able to act on the two hand. Defendant ○○ was able to recognize that ○○ was acting on behalf of the said new ○○○○○○○○○, because he was able to act on behalf of the said new ○○○○○○○, and that the regular plenary session of the National Assembly was recorded as CCTV and recorded in the media such as TV and various broadcasting companies of the National Assembly, and thus, Defendant ○○ was believed to act on behalf of the said new ○○○○, and thus, there was no intention or illegality of defamation.

B. Determination

(1) The facts constituting the elements of a criminal trial under the evidence law, whether they are subjective or objective requirements, are the prosecutor with the burden of proof that they have the burden of proof, so that the crime of defamation under Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act may be established, not only should the alleged facts be false, but also the prosecutor must prove that the alleged facts are false, and if the alleged facts are not consistent with the objective facts but also the alleged facts are disputed, the whole purport of the alleged facts cannot be viewed as false facts, even if there is a little difference from the objective facts or somewhat exaggerated expression in detail, if the material facts are consistent with the objective facts, even if there is an expression that is different from the objective facts or somewhat exaggerated. Furthermore, the finding of guilty of the facts constituting a crime should be based on the evidence with probative value that can cause the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence that establishes such a degree, the defendant's interest can only be determined as the defendant's interest even if there is no evidence that establishes such a conviction.

However, in determining the burden of proof, if the existence of a fact is proved as well as the absence of a specific fact, the prosecutor who is the active party of the case is a reasonable deliberation, if it is about the absence of a specific act at a specific place.

Although it is necessary to prove without any room, it is difficult to prove the absence of a fact that has not been embodied in an unspecific period and space by social norms, while it is more easy to prove the existence of such fact, such circumstance should be considered in determining whether the prosecutor fulfilled the above burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do5190, Feb. 26, 2004, etc.).

Therefore, a person who actively asserts that a person who asserts that he/she had no suspicion of suspicion is subject to the burden of presenting a prima facie proof that the existence of such fact is true, and the prosecutor can prove that the person is false by impeachmenting the credibility of the materials presented. In such a case, the mere presentation of the materials to be presented is insufficient to the extent that it is possible for the prosecutor to prove that the materials are false, and at least, the materials to the extent that it is possible for the prosecutor to prove that the materials are false should be held liable for the statement of false facts when the materials are not presented or the credibility of the presented materials are concealed. (2) According to the above examination evidence submitted on July 22, 2009, according to the victim ○○ (hereinafter referred to as the instant case, health stand back, ○○’s legal statement by the witness, and the result of the verification of the video CD in this court.

At the plenary session of the National Assembly located in the Dong-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul at the plenary session of the National Assembly, a member of ○○○○ who was on the seat of the National Assembly to take part in the deliberation and voting of the bill, returned to his seat for voting, and returned to the seat of the Speaker. When voting on the bill of the Broadcasting Act, ○○○○○○ who was on the seat of ○○○○○○○○○ Assembly member, was resisted by him on behalf of another member of the National Assembly. The victim ○○ did not cast an acting vote on behalf of the other member, and there is no video containing the face of the proxy voting, respectively. Defendant ○○○ does not present an act by proxy of the new ○○○○ Council member or an supporting material on the existence of the video. In addition, even according to Defendant ○○○○○○’s assertion, ○○○○ did not seem to act more than two times on behalf of the principal, and even if part of the guest did not have engaged in the above voting, “○○○○○ voting.”

Nevertheless, Defendant ○○○ does not go through an act of proxy voting or a process of confirming the existence of a video image, even though it was sufficient to do so, it can be concluded that it is true even if it was sufficiently sufficient, and as long as it was stated, Defendant ○○○○’s act above is objectively false, thereby impairing Defendant ○○○’s reputation by objectively pointing out false facts, and such intent is also acknowledged. In addition, Article 310 of the Criminal Act, which is premised on indicating true facts, cannot be applied as long as the alleged facts by Defendant ○○○ are false. As such, Defendant ○○’s act constitutes true facts and solely for the public interest, and thus, it constitutes illegality.

In addition, the act of publishing such suspicions to the mass media on the day of the National Assembly’s voting on the media bill without the minimum confirmation procedure as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment by Defendant ○○○○ cannot be seen as being a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules of Article 20 of the Criminal Act. Thus, it cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules of Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, Defendant ○○○ and his defense counsel’s above part is without merit.

7. As to the obstruction of business by holding No. 13

A. Defendant ○○, Yellow○, New○, Lee ○, Lee ○, ○○, and his defense counsel’s assertion

Although there was a symbolic act in the vicinity of the sentiments and a similar act to the facts of the crime in the judgment, the victim Kim ○, and yellow ○○ et al. argued that it is nothing more than that of trying to work in a emotionally written manner despite the opening of various other entrances at the time, and thus, it does not constitute the crime of interference with business since there was no actual intention to work or there was no actual intention to work, and it did not

B. Determination

(1) The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. The term “power” includes not only assault and intimidation, but also pressure by social, economic, political status, and royalty as well as assault and intimidation, because it is a tangible or intangible force that may suppress and confuse a person’s free will. And the term “business” refers to the entire work or business that continues to be performed in accordance with the status of occupation or social life, and it does not include any kind of work, whether it is a main or incidental. Even if a single work is conducted to a certain extent, or is conducted in close relation to the execution of the original work that continues to be performed in the status of occupation or social life. Furthermore, the term “influence” includes not only interference itself in the performance of the business, but also it also interferes with the management of the business.

In addition, the crime of interference with business is an abstract dangerous crime if there is a risk of interference with business as above, even if the result of the interference with business did not occur, it constitutes such crime. (2) According to the evidence submitted by the Defendants, including ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○○○, and ○○○○○, who started to work on April 5, 2010, and the Non-Subrogation executives, including ○○, who started to work on the general strike, claimed “the withdrawal of appointment of ○○○,” the criminal complaint against ○○○○, ○○, and ○○○○, who started to work for the president and ○○○○○○○, who did not have any influence on the above victims’ work, and thus, the Defendants and 100 members did not have any risk of interference with business at the ○○○○’s head office’s work at the time of Kim Jong-dong’s 308th, an act of interference with business.

Therefore, the above part of the above part of the defendant Lee ○-○, Yellow ○, New ○○, Lee ○-○, ○○○, and the defense counsel is without merit.

8. As to obstruction of the performance of official duties and concealment of public goods

A. Defendant ○○○ and his defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant ○, at an open meeting on July 22, 2009, recognized the fact that ○○ had the victim Kim○○ at the time of the opening of the meeting. However, the above Kim○ did not recognize the fact that ○○ was the “police officer performing his duties,” and the above Kim○ alleged that there was no intention to interfere with the performance of official duties or concealment of public goods, and in particular, there was no conspiracy with the name-free person as to the concealment of public goods.

B. Determination

According to the evidence submitted by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, who had been photographing the Defendant at the time of the instant assembly, it is difficult for the Defendant to view that the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was a police officer to know that the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○ was a police officer’s act of taking advantage of his or her name, and that the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○’s act of taking advantage of his or her or her personal character, and that the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s act of taking advantage of his or her or her personal character, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○○○○○ was a police officer who was aware of his or her personal character at the time of the instant assembly, and that the Defendant’s ○○○’s act of taking advantage of his or her personal character.

In addition, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. Even if some of the co-offenders do not directly share part of the elements of a crime, considering the status, role, control or influence over the progress of the crime in the whole crime, if it is acknowledged that there is a functional control through essential contribution to the crime, not just a simple conspiracy, but also a functional control through substantial contribution to the crime, the so-called crime as a co-principal cannot be exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do428, Apr. 26, 2007). The conspiracy in the co-principal does not require legal conviction, but only a combination of intent to realize a certain crime. The combination of co-offenders is established by impliedly and implicitly taking into account the facts and circumstances that all the co-offenders were found to exist in the situation of the co-principal's participation in the crime, as well as the circumstances leading to the defendant's participation in the crime.

Therefore, Defendant ○○○ and his defense counsel’s above part of the assertion is without merit.

Parts of innocence

1. On April 8, 2009, the obstruction of performance of official duties against Defendant Lee ○○ (2010, 466)

A. Summary of the facts charged

피고인 이○○은 2009. 4. 8. 09 : 55경 서울 영등포구 여의도동 31에 있는 MBC 본사 현관 앞에서 서울중앙지방검찰청 검사 박○○, 김○○ 및 수사관 15명이 위 영장을 집행하기 위하여 본사 건물 내로 들어가려고 하자 조합원 200여 명과 함께 " PD수첩 정당하다, 언론탄압 중단하라, 방송장악 저지하여 공영방송 사수하자 " 등의 피켓을 들거나 구호를 외치면서 서로 팔짱을 낀 채 스크럼을 짜고 막아서서 같은 날 11 : 15경까지 검사와 수사관들의 진입을 저지하였다 .

As a result, the defendant Lee ○-○ used 200 members to assault the above public officials of the prosecution to interfere with legitimate execution of criminal investigation.

B. Determination

( 1 ) 형법 제136조가 규정하는 공무집행방해죄는 직무를 집행하는 공무원에 대하여 폭행 또는 협박을 한 경우에 한하여 성립하는 것이고, 공무집행방해죄에 있어서 ' 폭행 ' 이라 함은 공무원에 대한 직 · 간접의 불법적인 유형력의 행사로서 형법상 다의적으로 해석되는 폭행 개념 중 넓은 의미의 것이긴 하지만, 구체적인 직무를 집행 중인 공무원에 대한 적극적인 행위로써 그 직무수행의사에 어떠한 외부적 영향을 끼치고 그 행동의 자유를 저해하여 직무의 적정한 집행을 방해할 만한 정도에 이르러야 할 것이다 . ( 2 ) 피고인 이○○의 법정진술 및 앞서 거시한 검사 제출 증거에 의하면, 서울중앙지방검찰청 검사 박○○, 김○○ 및 수사관 15명이 2009. 4. 8. 09 : 55경 서울 영등포구 여의도동 31에 있는 MBC 본사 현관 앞에서 압수수색영장 및 체포영장을 집행하기 위하여 MBC 본사 건물 내로 들어가려한 사실, 이에 피고인 이○○이 조합원 200여 명과 함께 " PD수첩 정당하다, 언론탄압 중단하라, 방송장악 저지하여 공영방송 사수하자 " 등의 피켓을 들거나 구호를 외치면서 서로 팔짱을 낀 채 스크럼을 짜고 막아선 사실 , 서로 일정한 거리를 유지하며 대치한 상황에서 위 검사 박○○는 압수수색영장 등의

Although a request was made several times to cooperate in the enforcement, it was rejected, and on the same day: 11:15, public prosecutors and investigators determined that the execution of the above warrant is impossible, and the fact that the eBC head office was removed from the MaBC head office may be recognized.

(3) In light of the following circumstances in relation to the execution of the above warrant, there was no physical conflict between the above prosecutor and the members including the above prosecutor's side and the defendant Lee ○○, and the above prosecutor and the investigator requested cooperation in the execution of the warrant, and they did not proceed to the act of gathering a warrant actively and directly. The crime of obstruction of business and the crime of obstruction of performance of official business are different from the protected legal interest and protected protection, and the crime of obstruction of official business are limited to the crime of obstruction of official business. The crime of obstruction of official business is a crime of violence and intimidation, and the crime of obstruction of official business is a crime of obstruction of official business is a crime of violence and intimidation, and the crime of obstruction of official business is not an element of the element of the crime (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Do4166, Nov. 19, 2009).

C. Conclusion

If so, among the facts charged in this case, the charges of obstruction of performance of official duties on April 8, 2009 against Defendant Lee ○○, among the facts charged in this case, constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty against Defendant Lee○ under the latter part of

2. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order on November 9, 2009 against Defendant ○○○

[2010 Highest 469]

A. Summary of the facts charged

On November 9, 2009, Defendant ○○ was the chairman of the Press Labor Relations Adjustment Committee, and from around 45 to around 13:55, he participated in an unreported assembly in a way that 20 boxes were opened, such as ○○○○○’s single-ro fluorction of the chairman of the Press Committee, ○○○○’s demand for re-deliberation of the Press Act, and ○○○○○○’s demand for re-deliberation of the Press Act, and ○○’s invalidity of the source of unlawful voting, ○○’s illegal decision-making of the Press Act, and ○○○○○’s joint representative of the Defendant and Korea Press Joint ○○○, etc., by a way that he was connected to the above Press Center before the Press Center.

Accordingly, on November 9, 2009, the chief of the same police station guard division, who was authorized by the head of the Seoul Southern-gu Police Station, requested voluntary dispersion on the ground of a non-reported assembly on November 13, 2009. Although the participants did not comply with the voluntary dispersion request, the participants, including the Defendant, did not immediately dissolve despite the first dispersion order at around 13:33; the second dispersion order at around 13:38; the third dispersion order at around 13:47; and the third dispersion order at around 13:47.

As a result, Defendant ○○ did not immediately dissolve even after he was ordered to do so by an unreported assembly.

B. Defendant ○○ and his defense counsel’s assertion

At the time, it is difficult to view it as "an outdoor assembly" subject to reporting under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and Defendant 1 was the shortest ○○○ act, and the place was limited to the extent of visiting members of the National Assembly, civic groups, etc. and dividing a locked conversation. At the time of the issuance of a dispersion order, Defendant ○○ was used for dissolution to other participants. Thus, it does not constitute a crime of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the refusal of dispersion order.

I asserts that this case is.

C. Determination

(1) According to Articles 6, 20, and 24 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in the event of an assembly without any lawful assembly report, the head of the competent police authority or the police officer authorized by the head of the competent police authority, in the event that the assembly is held without a legitimate assembly report, requests the participants to voluntarily dissolve within a reasonable time, and if the demand for voluntary dispersion is not complied with, he/she shall order the voluntary dispersion at least three times, and if the demand for voluntary dispersion is not complied with, it shall be interpreted that a punishment for criminal punishment may be imposed on the participants who have failed to dissolve without delay (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3491, Sept. 28, 2005)

(2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as each police statement on ○○○, ○○, and Yang○○, each police report on the status of information, etc., Defendant ○○○○○’s partial statement on the witness deposit, and the witness deposit ○○○○’s partial statement on November 4, 2009, Defendant ○○○, along with members of the press unions around the press on November 4, 2009, continued one-person single farming by holding the National Assembly’s reply to re-examine the act of violating the Press Act, and continuing one-person single farming at the above place; Defendant ○○○○○○○○ was the short farming of the Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ was the short farming of the Defendant ○○○○○○○ was the first time, and Defendant 1, 2009 the 6th day on November 1, 2009, the fact that Defendant 6th day of the instant single farming was the first day.

9. 10: (1) At the time of the above assembly and demonstration, 40 o.e., the above assembly and demonstration were held more than 10 o., the first and 3 participants of the assembly and demonstration at 00 o.e., the first and 10 o., the first o., the first o.e., the first 3 participants of the assembly and demonstration at 00 o.e., the first o., the first o., the first o., the second o.m., the first o., the first o.m., the second o.m., the second o.m., the first o.m., the second o.m., the second o.m., the second o., the first o.m., the second o.m., the first o., the second o's order to dissolve and the second o's first o.m., the second o.m.

D. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, the facts charged against the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order on November 9, 2009 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of not guilty is rendered to Defendant ○○ under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

양형의 이유 ( 피고인 최ㅇㅇ, 손OO )

1. Defendant ○○○ is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for each of the instant crimes for the public interest purpose of securing the fairness and independence of media, in light of the following: (a) there are no substantial and intangible damage inflicted on the media organization due to the repeated strike of each of the instant media; (b) Defendant ○○○, the chairman of the media union, actively participated in and planned each of the instant crimes; and (c) even if there are details acceptable to the motive or purpose of each of the instant crimes, the means and method should secure procedural justification; (d) the degree of violation of the positive law committed by Defendant ○○○; and (e) the degree of violation of the positive law committed by Defendant ○○○○. However, Defendant ○○○ was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the purpose of ensuring the fairness and independence of media, rather than personal interest; (e) each of the instant crimes committed by each of the instant media in a relatively peaceful manner that does not entail violence; (e) the fact that each of the instant crimes was committed by intrusion upon the National Assembly on July 222, 2009.

2. Defendant ○○○○○○○○○ was a person who had participated in several assemblies and directly performed a critical role in the construction and concealment of public goods by having a knife the knife, having been in possession of force on a police officer who was carrying out official duties, with the knife the knife of the knife and having been in possession of force on the knife, etc., the crime of this case is sentenced as ordered to Defendant ○○○○ by taking into account the following: in light of the content of the act, the danger to the public, etc., of the act, and the fact that the crime of this case is grave, its nature, and criminal circumstances are grave, and rather, it is consistent with the vindication of the defense,

Judges Chief Judge

Judges Yang Sung-soo