[업무방해,출판물에의한명예훼손][공1992.7.1.(923),1918]
(a) The case holding that the labor union's act of leaving out relief or leaving out the office part of the labor union's office while entering the strike and continuing the disturbing act by leaving out the office, leaving the office north, etc., exceeds the bounds of legitimacy of the industrial action in the method or means, such as giving oil and intimidation and suspending the operation of the director's equipment;
(b) Where a dismissed worker exercises his/her right to request a retrial guaranteed by the rules of employment, etc., whether he/she has the status of an employee or a member who can participate in the industrial action as such (affirmative)
(a) The case holding that it is unlawful in the course of an industrial action, which goes beyond the legitimacy or limit of the method or limitation of the industrial action, by holding that it is unlawful in the night to make a resolution of 40 or more reporters who are under the control of the situation after the labor union made a resolution of strike in accordance with legitimate procedures to go against the strike and to go against the strike of the strike of the strike of the power and to leave part of the office of the broadcasting station news report station in collaboration with other union members and 10 in the night when she comes under joint with other union members, and in the night when she comes under the influence of the strike of the situation, the act of going out, going out, singing out or singing, singing out, singing out, singing large or large sized materials, and continuing to sing out, singing out, singing out, singing out, singing out, etc., and to the employees who work without participating in the agricultural nature.
B. If the dismissed worker exercises the right to request a retrial guaranteed to the dismissed worker under the rules of employment, etc., the above worker has the right to receive a definite answer from the employer regarding the request for a retrial, and the effect of the above dismissal continues to be disputed by the legitimate procedure. Thus, the above worker has the status as an employee or a member who can take part in the industrial action.
(a) Articles 314 and 20 of the Criminal Act;
A. Supreme Court Decision 91Do1051 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2184), 91Do897 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2188), 91Do304 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1639). Supreme Court en banc Decision 89Do1579 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 272), 91Do326 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong192, 152), 91Do1342 delivered on February 111, 1992 (Gong192, 1070)
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendants
Attorney Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No5112 delivered on November 5, 1991
All appeals are dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the victim's 1's 1's 1's 1's 2's 1's 3's 1's 1's 10's 1''''''''''s 1''''''''' 1'''''''''''''''' 1'''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1'''''''''''''''''''''' 1'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1''''''''''''''''''''6''''''''''''1''''''''''''''''''''''11''''''''1'''''''''''1'''''''1'''''''''1'''''''''''''''1''''2''''''1'1'''.
In comparison with the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the obstruction of business by force.
However, according to the records, it can be known that the act of causing damage by Non-Indicted 2 was during the meeting of the union members related to the execution of the strike, and it is an act prior to the commencement of the strike. Thus, if Defendant 1 exercises the right to request a retrial guaranteed to dismissed workers under the rules of employment, etc., the above defendant has the right to be confirmed as an employer's definite answer about the request for a retrial, and until the response is reached, the above dismissal against the above defendant has been continuously disputed through a legitimate procedure without examining what procedure of the court below's decision does not regard the validity of the request for a retrial against the dismissal of the above dismissal, and denying the status of the above defendant's employee or union member who can participate in the strike merely because Defendant 1 did not file a lawsuit to nullify the dismissal of the above dismissal or request for remedy against unfair labor practices, it cannot be viewed as a result of misunderstanding the legal principles on the prohibition of intervention by a third party in the strike.
However, even though Defendant 1 is in the position of workers who can participate in the strike of this case, and even if Nonindicted 2’s act of destroying a consignee is not determined as an act of violence accompanied by the strike of this case, it is evident that the industrial action committed in the crime of obstruction of business as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court below cited by the court below, exceeds the bounds of legitimacy in the method or means (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do383, Jun. 11, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Do897, Jul. 12, 1991). Thus, the above mistake committed by the court below in judging the Defendants’ assertion against the legitimacy of the industrial action does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is therefore groundless.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)