If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

The defendant is the representative of the branch office E of the D Trade Union.

On March 4, 2013, from around 07:00 to 08:50 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) had agreed between the victim E-stock company in Ulsan-gu F and the representative of the five factory business division in relation to the installation of automatic inspection robots; (b) on the ground that there was no labor-management agreement between the victim and the representative of the five factory business division; and (c) the victim unilaterally tried to carry out the installation of robots, the Defendant suspended the production line by dividing the emergency stop pressing, which is the production line.

Accordingly, the employees of the E Co., Ltd. were tightly and closely sealed with the representatives of E branch offices with which their names cannot be known in order to relet production workers.

As a result, the defendant suspended the above 51Ra for a total of 110 minutes, and prevented the production of 36 cars such as G and H from producing 36 cars, thereby obstructing the business of the victim E-stock company by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement to I and J;

1. The K's statement;

1. The defendant and defense counsel asserts that the defendant's defense counsel's assertion of a copy of the agreement constituted a justifiable act, since the defendant has committed a sort of passive resistance.

This can be seen as a kind of collective action, which has suspended the production of a factory at the enforcement stage of the department including the defendant. However, as long as the defendant et al. directly participated in the collective action without due process in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, it cannot be viewed as a justifiable act. Therefore, this part of the argument is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Even though the defendant was under the period of suspension of the execution of a sentence under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, he/she suffered a significant loss to the victim company by committing such crime.

However, in this case, all labor and management act in the factory.