(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized the fact that the person obligated to report did not clarify the contents of a labor dispute and applied Articles 48 and 16 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, on the ground that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles under the same Act;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that applied Articles 48 and 16 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act by recognizing the fact that any labor dispute occurred, or to whom the obligation to report is not known, and that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles under the same Act.

As to the violation of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act

1. According to the records, the court below recognized that the defendant was the vice president of the non-indicted stock company's labor union, and jointly with co-defendant 2 of the court below, the president of the non-indicted stock company, the president of the union, and the co-defendant 2 of the court below, who was the chief of the union, and instigates union members without reporting to the administrative agency and the Labor Relations Commission on November 10, 1989, and caused industrial action by November 13, 198, and applied Articles

2. According to Article 16 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, when a trade dispute occurs, one of the parties to the dispute shall make a report to the administrative agency and the Labor Relations Commission and notify the other party thereof. Article 48 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act provides that if the parties to the dispute fail to make a report pursuant to Article 16 or make a false report, it shall be punished. Therefore, the crime of violation of Article 48 or 16 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act shall be deemed as the constituent elements thereof that a person liable to report the trade dispute fails to make the report or makes a false report.

3. The Labor Dispute Mediation Act defines the definition of a labor dispute (Article 2) and an industrial action (Article 3) and classify them. When a labor dispute occurs, one of the parties concerned shall report it to an administrative agency and the Labor Relations Commission (Article 16), and shall be arranged by the Labor Relations Commission (Articles 18 through 21), and the Labor Relations Commission shall conduct industrial action after the lapse of a certain procedure and cooling period (Articles 12(1) and 14). In light of the above provisions of the Act, the crime of violation of Articles 48 and 16 of the same Act is a provision punishing a person subject to the above duty to report, for failing to report or for failing to report it, or for failing to comply with the cooling period of the court after reporting it, such a violation shall be deemed to be a violation of Articles 47 and 14 of the same Act, and the statutory punishment for a violation of Article 47 of the same Act shall be deemed to be a fine not exceeding 10 million won or a fine not exceeding 20 million won.

4. If so, the court below acknowledged the fact that the court below did not specify to whom the labor dispute occurred, and applied Articles 48 and 16 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act does not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles under the same Act, and the arguments are with merit within the scope of this scope.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is omitted, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)