업무방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the instant strike was mainly conducted with the intention of preventing the government from creating a high-level managerial decision by the managing body, that is, the government’s measures to advance public enterprises, and its purpose is not justifiable, and thus does not constitute justifiable acts as provided in Article 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and Article 20
On the other hand, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the main purpose of the strike of this case is to improve working conditions and thus constitutes a justifiable act, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting
2. Determination
A. Whether the main purpose of the strike in this case is legitimate (1) Whether a company’s restructuring is conducted, such as dismissal or consolidation of business organizations, is a matter belonging to the high-level managerial decision of the management body, which, in principle, cannot be subject to collective bargaining. If a trade union goes to a strike in order to substantially oppose the implementation of the strike, barring special circumstances, such as that it is promoted with an urgent managerial necessity or with no reasonable reason, the trade union’s implementation of the restructuring inevitably entails changes in the status of workers or working conditions.
Even if an industrial action is conducted, the legitimacy of the purpose can not be recognized.
In addition, if there are many other purposes pursuing an industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action shall be determined on the basis of the principal or genuine purpose. If it is recognized that the industrial action would not have been conducted if the demand for the industrial action was lost, the entire industrial action shall not be justified.
(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the instant case is deemed to have been revealed. (3) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the safety of human resources.