Residents of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 110-ro 0

[Attachment-dong, Chang-dong, ○]

2. Red○○○ (0000 - 000000) and journalistss.

Residential Dong-dong, Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 0

Cheongju-si equivalent to Cheongju-dong 0

3. Long-○○○ (0000 - 000000) and journalistss.

Housing Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mapo-ro 4 0

Busan High Court Decision 200Do 1000,000

Attorney Shin Jae-soo

The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

Defendant Kim Jong-seok is the chairperson of the National Press Workers' Union ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the "○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Labor Union") composed of workers of ○○○○○ Construction (hereinafter referred to as the "○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Labor Union"), Defendant red flag is the vice-chairperson of ○○○○○○○○○○○ Labor Union, and Defendant ○○○○○○

On February 14, 2012, at a meeting of the council of representatives of ○○○○○ Labor Relations, the Defendants decided to withdraw the above disciplinary action and withdraw the personnel, to promote a strike for the purpose of withdrawing the president of ○○○ Kim○○○○○, and to promote a strike for the purpose of extinguishing the president of ○○○○○○○ Kim○○○, on the grounds that ○○○○○○○ Labor Relations Group’s 1,064 persons among 1,064 persons among 1,064 persons among 857 persons among 857 persons and 2,000 persons among 1,000 persons among 2,00 and 361,000 persons among 2,00 persons among 1,00 persons among 2,00 and 13,000 persons among 2,00 persons among 1,00 and 2,000 persons among 3,000 persons among 2,000.

However, the strike is to withdraw the disciplinary action against ○○○ Labor Relations Commission members, withdraw the personnel from the head of the news report headquarters, and obtain the withdrawal from the ○○ president Kim Jong-il, which is without justification for the purpose of improving the working conditions of workers, and is illegal industrial action without undergoing the adjustment procedure of the competent Labor Relations Commission.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, from 00 to 15:40 on March 6, 2012, 200, continued to engage in a strike by means of raising relief and holding a meeting for a long time. From 00 to 15:40 on April 1, 2012, the Defendants, including a group of labor services as described in attached Table 1, from March 6, 2012 to June 8, 2012, including a group of labor services, such as a group of labor services, and a group of labor services, as described in attached Table 1, carried out from March 6, 2012 to 0, such as 00 won, a group of labor services, such as ○○ (○○), new lines, and the Habane of this Sub-section, etc., with a program "O scheduled to broadcast" attached to existing broadcasting programs, and 200 won, 300 won, 300 won, 370 days, 370 days and 47 days, etc.

Ultimately, the Defendants conspired with the members of the ○○○ Labor Relations Association, and continued to engage in a strike with the lack of legitimacy of the purpose and procedure from March 6, 2012 to June 8, 2012, thereby obstructing the Defendant’s broadcast service, which is the victim, by force.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. “Authority” means any force that may cause confusion with another’s free will. Since a strike as an industrial action under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act does not merely refuse to provide labor pursuant to a labor contract but exercises the power to collectively suspend the provision of labor in order to accomplish the worker’s assertion by imposing excessive pressure on the employer, the strike constitutes a force under the crime of interference with business. However, as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, an employee has an independent right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions (Article 33(1) of the Constitution), it does not necessarily constitute the crime of interference with business at all times unforeseeable by an employer in light of the circumstances and circumstances before and after the strike, and it is reasonable to view that the strike constitutes a crime of interference with business under Article 317(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which constitutes a collective force (see, 2017).

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, (1) ○○ Central Labor Group was 2010.

7. From January to the 30th day of the same month, the strike was conducted for the purpose of the strike and the process broadcast. On January 27, 2012, when one year and six months have elapsed since the date of the strike, the company was subject to disciplinary action of 13 executive officers on the ground that the strike of ○○○○ Labor Group was illegal on January 27, 2012. After that, on the other hand, the nine disciplinary action against the nine executive officers was withdrawn, 4 months from the suspension of office for the head of ○○○○○, 3 months from the suspension of office for the head of ○○○○ and the head of ○○ Labor Relations Bureau, 2 months from the suspension of office for the head of ○○○○○ and the head of ○○ Labor Relations Bureau, and 2 months from the suspension of office

On February 1, 2012, ○○○○○○○○○ Labor Group posted a “declaration of Symnasty for withdrawal of discipline and Kim○○○○○○○○○○○○ Labor Group” on the 20th day of production of 2012, and notified the strike. On February 14, 2012, 5, 51 of the total number of incumbent representatives, including 67 members, passed a resolution on the total of 67 members, and announced it on February 15, 2012. (3) The 200○○ Labor Group’s 20th day from February 21, 2012 to 23th day of the same month. As a result, 1,063 members of the 24th day from February 24, 2012 to 4th day from February 24, 202, the 203th day from February 26, 2014.

C. Pursuant to the aforementioned legal doctrine, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant strike took place on a full-time basis at a time when ○○○○’s strike could not be predicted and caused serious confusion in the business operation, in light of the fact that ○○○, upon prior notice of the strike, ○○’s labor union’s resolution on and public notice of the strike at least ten (10) days after the resolution on the strike, was taken into account at the time of the strike, and ○○, prepared service guidelines related to the strike and prepared them.

Furthermore, as indicated in the facts charged, ○○○’s advertising loss 313,703,00 won and special provisions as to the instant strike

Considering that a person suffered damages, such as working allowances, KRW 71,414, 800, etc., in particular, according to the testimony of both ○○○○○○○○○, which had been the head of the ○○ labor-management cooperation department at the time of the instant strike, insofar as it is found that 7,00,000,000, or KRW 7,000 was reduced as a result of applying the principle of non-labor-free pay during the instant strike period, it is difficult to deem that the instant strike had monetary damage to ○

D. Ultimately, it is difficult to see that the free will to continue the business may lead to pressure or confusion due to the fact that the instant strike took place at a time unforeseeable by ○○○○, which causes a serious confusion or enormous damage to the operation of the business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and publicly announced the summary of the judgment of innocence under Article 58(2) of