A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,500,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Defendant

A was the Deputy Director of the Korea Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the "DEU") E branch, and Defendant B was the Director of the Korea Trade Union's Political Unification Bureau.

Dno Article demanded against the Government's "plan for the advancement of public enterprises", reinstatement of dismissed persons, and suspension of outsourcinging a restaurant of E business office, etc., which cannot be the legitimate purpose of industrial action, and caused a serious trouble to the people's daily life by punishing nationwide-level strike from around May 2009 to around June 2009, the illegal attitude in the search district, the nationwide-level attitude from around September 3, 2009, the warning strike by sector around September 2, 200, and the early regional circular wave from around November 26, 206 of the same year to December 4, 200 of the same year.

Accordingly, the Korea Railroad Corporation (hereinafter “KR”) started disciplinary proceedings on the members of the Korea Railroad Corporation related to the above strike. From January 11, 2010 to January 11, 2010, the Korea Railroad Corporation established disciplinary actions against the main employees and participants related to the strike, such as organizing the disciplinary committee in accordance with the company rules. In holding the disciplinary committee in accordance with the collective agreement and the disciplinary rules, the Korea Railroad Corporation decided to grant full authority to state opinions in the procedure, such as notifying the participation of the members of the Korea Labor Union in the union and the person under disciplinary action, the person under disciplinary action, and the person under disciplinary action, that he/she has the opportunity to participate in

However, by taking advantage of the fact that the defendants and the members of the DEU were fully guaranteed the opportunity to state their opinions, they attended the disciplinary committee as a person or an agent to state their opinions, and developed a statement irrelevant to the vindication of disciplinary action, such as a request for challenge against the chairperson of the disciplinary committee without any reason, thereby hindering the normal progress of the disciplinary committee.

1. Defendant A

A. The Defendant.