Defendant

In this case, the resumption of work of E company did not go through the procedure for the resumption of work according to the ordinary practice that should undergo when the company violated the labor-management agreement, and therefore it cannot be deemed as a protected work, and the act of the defendant does not constitute the element of the crime of interference with business, and even if the act of the defendant constitutes an act of resistance against the illegal demand by the private party, it does not constitute a legitimate act, and thus,

In light of the overall circumstances of this case, the punishment imposed by the court below (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

In light of the overall circumstances of this case by the prosecutor, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

On the other hand, the court below rejected the above argument and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by making a detailed statement of the defendant's argument and its decision under the title of "decision on the defense counsel's argument" in the judgment of the court below, which is the same as the reasons for appeal of this case. In light of the records and legal principles, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and it does not seem that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the defendant.

In this case, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument on the unfair sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor were made temporary action by the TGVra during the site site consultations in response to the previous accident, and the defendant divided the emergency stoper and suspended the production licensee. In light of the background of the occurrence, the prior measures of the company on the old side, which concerns the safety accident, were insufficient, and the conflict between labor and management over the post-management regarding the resumption of work, etc. are combined.