폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동주거침입)
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the grounds for appeal by a public prosecutor, a crime of interference with the business of a person is established in the event of interference with the business of a person by deceptive means or by force (Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act). The term “power” means any force that may cause confusion with the free will of a person
The strike, as an act impeding the normal operation of business by refusing to provide labor for the purpose of accomplishing his/her assertion, is an act of strike that impedes the normal operation of business by refusing to provide labor. Since the strike is not merely an omission of refusing to provide labor under a labor contract but is an exercise of the power to collectively suspend the provision of labor to accomplish the worker's assertion by imposing pressure on the employer, it includes the elements of force as referred to in the
In that sense, an employee may be restricted by Article 37(2) of the Constitution on the grounds of public interest, such as the maintenance of national security order or public welfare, and the exercise of that right must be justified. However, in principle, an employee has the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea). Therefore, a strike as an act of dispute does not always constitute an offense of interference with business at any time. In light of the circumstances and circumstances before and after, and after, the time when the employer was unable to predict, it may cause serious confusion or enormous damage to the business operation of the employer, which may cause confusion with the employer’s free will in relation to the management of the business.
Only in cases where evaluation can be conducted, it is reasonable to view that the refusal to provide collective labor constitutes a crime of interference with business as the abuse of force (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do482 Decided March 17, 201).