[노동쟁의조정법위반][공1990.12.1.(885),2330]
Whether Article 13-2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, which provides for the prohibition of intervention by a third party, is unconstitutional (negative)
Article 13-2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, which provides for the prohibition of intervention by a third party, shall not violate the Constitution.
Articles 21, 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 13-2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act
Supreme Court Decision 89Do2415 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1097) Constitutional Court Order 89HunGa103 delivered on January 15, 1990 (Gong114556 delivered on January 66, 199)
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Park Jong-Gyeong et al.
Msan District Court Decision 90No200 delivered on June 14, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.
The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.
Article 13-2 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act is not in violation of the Constitution, and there is no reason to discuss this issue. Furthermore, considering the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts against the defendant in violation of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the Trade Dispute Mediation Act as pointed out.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and 45 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)