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

2. B

3. C.

Attorney Kim Jong-hoon

A. Defendants

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) As to the Defendants’ crime committed on July 21, 2017, a school juristic person FAO (hereinafter “FF”) constitutes a “employer” under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), and the FJ, an employer, is obligated to allow the Defendants to take industrial action. The Defendants’ act committed on July 21, 2017, which is within several obligations, constitutes an act in violation of the Act on the Obstruction of Duties and the Punishment of Violences, Etc. (joint residence) and constitutes a justifiable act (deficiencies or misapprehension of legal principles).

B) As to Defendant C’s crime committed on July 21, 2017, Defendant C, as a general member, did not enter the Secretariat’s office and office secretariat’s office on the day of the instant case, and as such, Defendant C cannot be deemed to have committed the crime committed on July 21, 2017 in collaboration with Defendant A and B, since “the fact of committing the crime through functional control” is not recognized (legal scenario).

C) Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged on July 21, 2017 is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence sentenced by the court below (the suspended sentence of one year, one year, one year, and one year, one year, and two million won, which are sentenced to the suspended sentence in April, and one year, and two million won, which are sentenced to the suspended sentence in Defendant A) is too unreasonable.B. Prosecutor

The sentence of a fine of KRW 2 million imposed on Defendant C (the suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 2 million) by the court below is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. Whether the elements of a crime are satisfied

The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that there was no possibility of meeting the constituent elements of the crime of interference with the duties and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, on the ground that, according to each of the statements made by the investigation agencies by the relevant parties, the Defendants, A, B, etc. entered the Nan Office against the explicit or presumed intent of N, and the fact that several members, including the Defendants, occupy part of the Nan Office’s building street, the office of the Secretariat, and the office of the secretariat and the office of the secretariat, and singing out and singing, etc., leading to interference with the duties of the Secretary and the employees of the Secretariat.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

In addition, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Whether the act constitutes a justifiable act

1) Relevant legal principles

In order to become a legitimate act under the Criminal Act, the following conditions should be met: (a) the subject of collective bargaining should be the subject of collective bargaining; (b) the purpose of the collective bargaining should be to create autonomous negotiations between labor and management to improve working conditions; (c) the employer has refused to conduct collective bargaining with respect to specific demands to improve working conditions of workers; (d) the means and methods should be harmonized with the employer’s property rights; and (e) the means and methods should be in harmony with the employer’s property rights; and (e) the exercise of violence should not be included in the exercise of violence (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Do4837, Oct. 25, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15499, May 23, 2013).

Even if an employer is not an employer, if he/she is in a position to substantially and specifically control and determine the authority and responsibilities of an employer who employs the worker on the basic labor conditions, etc. to a certain extent, he/she shall be deemed an employer who is obligated to engage in collective bargaining within such a limit (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du8881, Mar. 25, 2010).

2) Determination

First of all, an industrial action should be conducted against an employer in order to constitute a legitimate industrial action. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, FJ entered into a wage contract with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”), and G entered into a separate employment contract with its employees, and the FJ is not in a direct contractual relationship with the above employees. According to the above cleaning service contract, according to the above cleaning service contract, the management and control of the specific working hours, place, work contents, etc. of the worker is G. The FJ must, in principle, demand compensation for a certain amount of damages in the event of a failure in cleaning work caused by the worker’s work attitude employed by G or damages the FJ facilities intentionally or by negligence, and considering the fact that it is difficult to view the FF cost as a direct employer status under the Trade Union Act for the above workers.

However, according to the above cleaning service contract, FJ directly determines the scope of cleaning (Article 2 of the above contract) and G, after receiving a monthly cleaning work plan from G on the work level, the frequency of cleaning, and the personnel input plan, etc. (Article 3 of the above contract). If G is requested to submit data (such as labor cost, welfare cost, etc.), G is obligated to consult with G on the status of the performance of the contract (Article 25(1) of the above contract). In addition, an increase or decrease in the service price agreed upon between FJ and G is indirectly affecting the amount of wages paid to G workers. Therefore, it is difficult to view the FF’s price as an “person unrelated to an industrial action” under Article 38(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Accordingly, if the means and methods of industrial action by the Defendants are in harmony with the rights and interests of the FJG, etc., and if various relevant legal principles are met, it is reasonable to deem the Defendants’ act as a legitimate act.

However, the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in addition to the circumstances already stated in the court below's detailed attitude, i.e., ① the defendant side occupied the office of work director who works for N against the explicit will of N without obtaining the prior permission of N in order to conduct industrial action, ② the defendant side did not simply simply talk with N while demanding a seal, but did not make efforts so that other universities can be resolved in terms of wages." Even after the N's words, the defendant continued to sign an agreement with N in total 8 hours and 30 minutes of working office and office office, and the defendant's signature was demanded by the Secretary to freely consult with QU's office and office, ③ the defendant's act of movement or division of work to the extent that it did not interfere with the duty of N's minimum wage, etc. It did not appear that the defendant's act of movement or division of work office and division of work, etc. to the extent that it did not interfere with the duty of N in light of the legal principles or division of work.

C. Whether to recognize Defendant C’s conspiracy

1) Relevant legal principles

Even in cases where two or more persons are co-offenders who jointly process a crime in a successive or secret manner, and a combination of intent to realize the crime is established, a conspiracy relationship may be established. A person who does not directly participate in the act of the crime is held criminal liability as a co-principal with respect to the act of the other co-principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do3483, Nov. 10, 2000).

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, i.e., (i) the defendant C was unable to witness the secretariat office or office room in the prosecutor's investigation; (ii) the defendant C stated in the same investigation that "the member was absent from the secretariat because he did not have a place to sit in the secretariat; and (iii) the defendant C was sufficiently aware that at the time the members were in the office and office room of the secretariat and the office room of the secretariat and the other party involved in the situation at the time, and the defendant C was in the conduct of singing and singing, etc. while leaving the office and office room of the secretariat. (iii) The defendant C was in the police investigation, as stated, that several members, such as the chairperson B and the deputy director, were participating in the industrial action on the day of this case, and was aware that the office room was occupied in order to negotiate, and that the defendant C could not be seen to have been aware of the contents of the industrial action in this case's agreement among the members of the union of this case as well as the defendant C et al.

3. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing between the parties

The defendants' illegal obstruction of duties and intrusion by negligence brought about a significant obstacle to the work of the Furgy, and the fact that it is not agreed with the Furgy is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, even though the means and method are not recognized to be reasonable, the defendants were going to go to each industrial action of this case for the purpose of maintaining and improving the working conditions and enhancing the economic and social status of workers, there are circumstances to be considered in the circumstances, and the defendants' interference with and intrusion by their respective duties are not directly accompanied by violence, and therefore it is difficult to view that there is a high possibility of criticism in a method. Defendant B and C are first offenders favorable to the defendants.

In full view of all the conditions of sentencing indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, including the above normal relationship and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, the judgment of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion. In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s sentencing as it is at the

Therefore, both the Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing and the Prosecutor’s Defendant C’s assertion of unfair sentencing are rejected.

4. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the Defendants and the appeal by the Prosecutor against Defendant C is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gyeong-dong

Judges For the People's Republic