Attorney C, D, and E

The remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the court below acquitted all of the charges on July 2, 2008 on this part on the ground that it is hard to find that the FFF members of the workplace participated in the general strike and collectively refused to provide labor, and it is difficult to recognize that the total strike was conducted at a time unforeseeable by users due to the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and it is difficult to conclude that the total strike caused serious confusion or enormous damage to the business operation to the extent that users' free will to continue the business could cause voltage and confusion. Thus, it is hard to view that there was a force to the extent that the crime of interference with business was established in the general strike on July 2, 2008 on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the crime of interference with business was force on July 2, 2008.

2. However, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court, and the contents of the fact-finding inquiry reply submitted as evidence after remand, etc., it can be deemed that the strike was conducted entirely at a time unforeseeable by the employer on July 2, 2008, in light of the developments leading up to the strike of the first instance court and the nature of the method thereof, etc., as to the 13 business places falling under the category of obstruction of business at 13 times (hereinafter “13 business places of this case”), among these facts charged, as to the 13 business places falling under the category of interference with business at 19,43,50,57,87,95, 98, 102, 105, 122, 124, 129, 1333 times, etc., and the degree of interference with business by the employer is highly likely to cause serious confusion or enormous damage due to the operation of the business of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charges of interference with business concerning the 13 workplaces of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on interference with business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Meanwhile, in light of the records, the court below's decision not guilty of the remaining facts charged except for interference with the business of the 13 places of business in this case is just in accordance with the purport of the judgment of remand, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of interference with business, or by exceeding the bounds of

3. Therefore, of the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the crime of interference with business as to the number of occasions in the annexed Table 39, 43, 50, 57, 87, 95, 98, 102, 105, 122, 124, 129, and 133 of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Gin-