A. Fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part)

(1) As to the invalidity of indication on official duties

The defendants were aware of the existence of the provisional injunction against non-indicted 1, and even if the defendants independently do not belong to the debtor of the provisional injunction against obstruction of business and access, the defendants are liable for the crime against the act of entering the company against the purport of the above provisional injunction against prohibition of access as a joint principal offender for the invalidation of indication in the line of duty. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant 1, 3, 4, and 5 of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) As to interference with business

The Defendants interfered with the production of the company by physically organizing non-regular workers by means of violence, such as distributing promotional materials to workers engaged in production work by entering the company with physical means, such as fighting on the lawful interference of the managers of the company who prevented the Defendants who intend to unlawfully intrude into the company. The company's work includes the task of guarding the company from illegal intrusion, and it is recognized that the Defendants conducted physical fighting with Non-Party 1, who was subject to the prohibition of entry and exit in front of the company situation, in order to enter the company into the company as well as with Non-Party 1, who was subject to the prohibition of entry and exit in front of the company situation, and thus, the lower court acquitted Defendant 1, 3, 4,

B. The point of unfair sentencing (the part of the charge)

In light of the fact that the cancellation of complaint by Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. is likely to spread the period of strike and did not cause any damage to it, the complaint is not cancelled due to the reflection and compensation of the Defendants, and that all the Defendants are the chairman of the Trade Union of the victim company or the middle executives of the victim company with the same criminal power, such as the obstruction of business, etc., and those with strong violent inclinations, it is unfair that the sentence of the court below against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(1) As to the invalidity of indication on official duties

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the non-indicted 1 was subject to a disposition of obstruction of business and prohibition of entry from the Ulsan District Court on November 12, 2003 to the effect that "the non-indicted 1 shall not enter the Ulsan District Court 700 Hyundai Automobile Corporation's factory located in Ulsan-dong, and shall not allow workers of the cooperation company engaged in production activities to perform any act interfering with the creditor's business." The above provisional disposition decision was posted on the company's regular notice, but the defendants are entitled to access to the workplace as the executives of the above trade union pursuant to the collective agreement with the company. Meanwhile, the defendants are prohibited from entering the workplace, and the defendants and non-indicted 1 accompanied by the defendants are subject to minor discipline with the management officers of the company. As such, after consultation between the defendant and the chief vice-chairperson of the Trade Department and the non-indicted 3, the defendants entered the factory at the factory site, and as a result, the defendants did not enter the non-indicted 1 into the company's temporary disposition and the defendant 1 and the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) As to interference with business

First of all, the argument that the Defendants interfere with the security business of the company does not require the result of interference with business in establishing the crime of interference with business, but it is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with business. However, it is difficult to evaluate the Defendants’ act of entering the company factory as an interference with business to the extent that the risk of interference with business is likely to occur, on the condition that the Defendants would enter the company factory together with Nonindicted 1 and did not enter the work site and Nonindicted 1 would not enter the company factory, and the Defendants entered the company factory, as seen above, on the ground that the Defendants, entitled to access the company factory, attempted to enter the company factory into the company factory, and Nonindicted 1, accompanied by the Defendants, were subjected to the prohibition of entry, and did not interfere with the business to the extent that the risk of interference with the security business of the company is likely to occur.

Then, we examine the argument that the Defendants interfere with the production of the company. As the court below decided as appropriate, the Defendants' daily conduct was pre-time at the start of the trial time when the Defendants permitted the entry from the management staff of the company, and the Defendants' participation in the labor union against the workers who start a restaurant or finished a meal by using the occupation trial time cannot be deemed to have caused a risk of impeding the company's production business. However, even if the Defendants' part of the Defendants distributed printed materials soliciting non-regular workers to join the labor union, it is difficult to regard such act as a force under the crime of interference with business, and the time began, and the act was merely distributed with printed materials. According to the collective agreement concluded between Hyundai Automobile Company and its labor union, according to the Hyundai Automobile Company and its labor union, the Defendants were authorized to enter the work site of the company, and the company's management staff was allowed to enter the work site of the company, and it is also difficult to see that the Defendants' entry to the above risk of causing interference with the company's entry into the labor union.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. On the issue of unfair sentencing

In light of the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime committed in the records and pleadings, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, criminal records, intelligence and environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., in particular, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is deemed unreasonable on account of the following: (a) the Defendants, as regular workers, have caused the instant crime to improve the situation faced by non-regular workers; (b) the company’s revocation of the complaint against the Defendants; (c) the victims of the injury did not want to be punished; (d) the degree of interference with business is minor and the victims’ rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and even if considering the circumstances cited by the prosecutor in the grounds for appeal, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is deemed inappropriate and unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since all appeals against the Defendants by the prosecutor are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-cheon (Presiding Justice)