2. ㅁㅁㅁ

3. Do provisons;

5. △△△;

6. The ▽▽▽▽△△

8. △△△△

9. Supply of water;

10. ▷▷▷

ix) Judgment

16. All parts except the obstruction of business shall be reversed.

피고인 ○○○을 벌금 3,000,000원에, 피고인 □□□, ●●●, ◆◆◆, ☆☆☆, ▽▽▽,

△△△를 각 벌금 2,000,000원에, 피고인 ▼▼▼, ♤♤♤, ▷▷▷을 각 벌금 1,000,000

shall be punished by the Board of Governors.

Defendant for the period of 10,000 won converted into one day when the Defendants did not pay the above fine;

be confined in the Nowon-gu.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed.

가. 이 사건 각 쟁의행위는 한국♧♧♧( 이하 ' B '라고 한다)가 정부의 공공기관 선진화 계획에 따라 정원 5,115명을 감축하는 등의 구조조정 안건을 의결하자 이에 반 발하면서 정원감축 철회 등 공기업선진화 반대, 해고자 복직, 고소·고발 및 징계 철회, 손해배상소송철회 등 경영에 관한 사항으로서 쟁의행위의 목적으로 삼을 수 없는 주장 을 관철시키기 위하여 행해진 것으로 '목적의 정당성' 요건을 결여하였다.

B. Among each industrial action of this case, the industrial action of September 8, 2009 and "industrial action of September 16, 2009" did not aim at urging collective bargaining in good faith, but for the object of opposing the public enterprise's decentralization, which was not an issue at the time of the commencement of the industrial action around 2008, and therefore, it was incorporated into a new industrial action. Thus, even though it goes through a separate vote for pros and cons and conciliation procedure, the legitimacy requirement of the procedure is not satisfied.

C. Each of the industrial actions in this case did not meet the legitimacy and legitimacy of the purpose and procedure as above, and even if the industrial action did not cause a decrease in artificial restructuring or actual conditions in light of the public interest function, it was impossible to predict as a BB, an employer, that the union repeated the industrial action for the purpose of the public enterprise's advancement objection, dismissal, reinstatement, etc., to engage in circular or full-scale strike. As long as the industrial action in this case causes significant damage, such as the occurrence of operating income loss of BB, this constitutes a force of interference with business as a force that could suppress and confuse the free will on the continuation of the business in BB.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged of this case, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the force in the crime of interference with business, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

According to the provisions of subparagraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), an industrial action by a trade union refers to an act impeding the normal operation of an employer’s business in the course of a trade dispute in order to accomplish the claim regarding the determination of working conditions.

In order for an industrial action to be recognized as a justifiable act under the Criminal Act, the subject of collective bargaining shall be able to be the subject of collective bargaining. The purpose of the industrial action shall be to create autonomous negotiations between labor and management to improve working conditions, and the employer shall commence the collective bargaining with respect to the specific demand for the improvement of working conditions of workers, and barring any special circumstance, it shall undergo procedures prescribed by statutes, such as the consent and resolution of union members, and the means and method thereof shall be in harmony with the rights of the employer, such as the employer’s property rights, and shall not constitute the exercise of violence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15499, May 23, 2013).

On the other hand, whether to implement corporate restructuring, such as layoff or corporate merger, is a matter belonging to the managerial decision of light transfer, which can not be subject to collective bargaining in principle, and, inasmuch as a trade union is going to become an industrial action to practically oppose the implementation of the industrial action, barring special circumstances such as the urgent managerial necessity or the fact that it is being promoted with bad intent without any justifiable reason, the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action cannot be recognized even if the implementation of the industrial action inevitably entails changes in the status or working conditions of workers. If there are many purposes pursuing the industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action should be determined based on the main or genuine purpose. If it is deemed that the industrial action was not conducted if it was not conducted upon the improper demand, the entire industrial action has no justification (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11030, Jan. 27, 2011).

In addition, a strike as an industrial action includes an element that can be seen as a force in the crime of interference with business by exercising the power to force the workers to collectively suspend the provision of labor by putting pressure on the workers to accomplish the claim, but the workers are, in principle, entitled to independent right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Thus, the strike does not always meet the elements of the crime of interference with business. It is reasonable to deem that the employer’s free will with respect to the continuation of business can be affected by pressure and confusion only if it can be evaluated that the refusal of the provision of collective labor constitutes a force and constitutes the crime of interference with business on March 17, 201 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do482, Apr. 2, 2011).

B. On September 8, 2009, Defendant 1’s obstruction of business, and Defendant 1’s failure to perform the business

With respect to interference with business on September 16, 2009

In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court cannot be deemed that the act of industrial action on September 8, 2009 and the act of dispute on September 16, 2009 was conducted at an unpredictable time by BB, the employer, and even if the act of dispute caused considerable damages due to the act of industrial action, it shall not be deemed that the act of dispute was conducted in advance.

Since each industrial action is due to the nature of the workplace itself, it did not constitute the above force in the crime of interference with business and ordered the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged against the above Defendants.

In light of the records and relevant legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case reveals that the court below erred in its determination by misapprehending the legal principles as to the abuse of force against the duty, etc., but it is just in its conclusion that each industrial action listed in the facts charged of this part was conducted to urge the collective bargaining against BB who neglected this bargaining without justifiable grounds, and its purpose is justified and it is not guilty on the grounds that the purpose is not unlawful in the process. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts as alleged by the prosecutor or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the abuse of force against the crime of interference with business.

다. 피고인 ○○○, □□□, ●●●, ◆◆◆, ☆☆☆, VVV, ▼▼▼에 대한 2009.

11. 5.부터 2009. 11. 6.까지의 업무방해의 점, 피고인 OOO, ●●●, ◆◆◆,

▽▽▽, △△△, ♤♤♤, ▼▼▼, ▷▷▷에 대한 2009. 11. 26.부터 2009. 12. 3.

As to interference with business to the extent of

1) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the following facts may be recognized:

( 가 ) 정부가 2008. 12.경 한국BBB의 정원 5,115명 감축 등을 내용으로 하는 4 차 공공기관 선진화 계획을 발표하였고, 그에 따라 한국♧♧♧가 2009. 1. 경 5,115명의 정원을 감축하기로 하는 선진화 세부 실천계획을 수립한 후, 실제로 2009. 4.경 열 린 이사회에서 2012년경까지 정원 5,115명을 연차적으로 감축하기로 하는 내용의 구조 조정 안건을 의결하자, 노조는 이에 대응하여 정원감축 철회 등 구조조정 저지 및 해고자 복직 등을 꾸준히 주장해 왔다 .

In addition, the public sector trade unions belonging to the National Federation of Public Service and Services Unions under the National Federation of the National Federation of Korea, including unions, formed a joint strike headquarters around September 2009 and announced that the public sector's unions should go into the public sector's collective strike for the purpose of preventing advanced policies such as the suspension of public sector's privateization and strengthening mutual ties.

(B) On the other hand, after the completion of the preceding strike, the collective bargaining agreement and the wage agreement resumed on September 30, 2009, declared the bargaining conference on the same day on the grounds that the union has a big difference in the position between labor and management on the same day, but continued collective bargaining until October 27, 2009. In this process, the union applied for the adjustment of the plan on wage needs, but rejected the mediation proposal to the effect that the labor union proposed the plan on wage equality presented by the National Labor Relations Commission.

(C) However, on October 10, 2009, the common strike headquarters composed of unions, etc. announced that the government will go into the industrial action on November 6, 2009, centering on the place of business belonging to the headquarters for the joint strike in cases where the government does not go into the negotiations. On October 12, 2009, the first strike took place on November 5, 2009 with the aim of withdrawing the advancement of policies of public agencies and implementing the reinstatement agreement in order to solve the issues at the temporary strike of the union, which is the similar time, on October 12, 2009, the first strike took place as circular strike, but it took place on November 5, 2009 at the time of the above industrial action of the headquarters for the joint strike, and the second strike took place on November 6, 2009, the Seoul regional strike and the second strike took place on November 20, 2009, the second strike decided to extend the first strike to 30th day of the president’s industrial action.

공동투쟁본부는 2009. 11. 4. 에 이르러 다시 2009. 11. 6.에 총파업 출정식을 하고 , 대통령의 공기업 선진화 워크숍 일정(2009. 11. 28. 로 변경) 에 맞추어 전면파업을 하기 로 하는 등의 투쟁계획을 구체적으로 밝혔고, 노조는 2009. 11. 5.부터 2009. 11. 7.까지 지역별 순환파업을 감행하였는데, 여객열차 327대, 화물열차 355대의 운행이 중 단됨으로써 영업수익 손실과 대체인력 보상금 지출 등으로 한국♧♧♧에 큰 규모의 손 해가 발생하였다.

(D) After November 12, 2009, collective bargaining between unions and Korea was resumed, and the wage negotiations and working-level negotiations were promoted four times from November 24, 2009 in the form of special concentration bargaining.

However, in addition, the Trade Union decided to conduct the full-scale strike on November 26, 2009 with the aim of the increase in new business and manpower, the implementation of the full-time strike on November 21, 2009, and the implementation of the agreement on reinstatement of dismissed persons, respectively, by opening the committee for the full-time strike or the committee for the committee for the resolution on November 23, 2009 and November 18, 2009. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21824, Nov. 23, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21834, Nov. 23, 2009>

이어 노조는 2009. 11. 24. 마지막으로 개최된 특별 집중교섭에서 해고자 복직 요구 수용 등을 단체교섭 타결의 선결 조건으로 내세우면서 한국요♧♧의 거부를 이유 로 한 전면파업 돌입을 언급하였다. 한국BBB도 같은 날 늦게 대화를 통한 모범적인 단체협약의 체결은 어렵다고 판단하였음을 사유로 들어 효력연장조항에 따라 그 효력 이 잠정적으로 유지되던 기존 단체협약의 해지를 통보하였다.

( 마 ) OS 노조는 2009. 11. 25. 투쟁명령을 하달한 뒤, 2009. 11. 26.부터 2009. 12. 3.까지 전면파업을 실행하였는데, 여객열차 999대, 화물열차 1,742대의 운행이 중 단됨으로써 영업수익 손실과 대체인력 보상금 지출 등으로 한국♧♧♧에 큰 규모의 손 해가 생겼다.

2) Relevant statutes

노동조합법 제71조는 공중의 일상생활과 밀접한 관련이 있거나 국민경제에 미치 는 영향이 큰 공익사업 중 그 업무의 정지 또는 폐지가 공중의 일상생활을 현저히 위 태롭게 하거나 국민경제를 현저히 저해하고 그 업무의 대체가 용이하지 아니한 사업을 필수공익사업으로 지정하고 있는데, 한국♧♧♧가 영위하는 사업도 이에 해당한다. 그리고 필수공익사업의 업무 중 그 업무가 정지되거나 폐지되는 경우 공중의 생명 · 건 강 또는 신체의 안전이나 공중의 일상생활을 현저히 위태롭게 하는 업무인 필수유지업 무는 쟁의행위 중에도 수행되어야 하며, 필수유지업무 근무 근로자로 지명된 조합원은 쟁의행위에 참여할 수 없는 등 노동조합법 제42조의2 등의 규정은 공익적인 차원에서 필수공익사업장에서의 쟁의행위에 관하여 일정한 제한을 가하고 있다.

3) Determination.

위와 같은 사실관계와 관련 법령의 내용 등에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사 정들, 즉 ① 임금 수준 개선 등의 의도가 전혀 없었다고 단정할 수는 없을지언정, 그 경위나 전개 과정 등으로 미루어 순환파업 및 전면파업은 공동투쟁본부가 정한 일정과 방침에 맞추어 단체교섭의 대상이 될 수 없는 공공기관 선진화 정책 반대 등 구조조정 실시 그 자체를 저지하는 데 주된 목적이 있었음이 뚜렷이 드러나는 점, ② 순환파업 및 전면파업의 직전까지 계속 진행되었던 단체교섭이 완전히 결렬될 만한 상황도 아니 었던 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 또한 한국♧♧♧가 단체협약의 해지를 통보한 것은 전면 파 업 돌입을 자제하고 단체교섭의 대상이 될 수 있는 사항에 한정하여 단체교섭을 진행 하자는 의사표시였다고 해석하지 못할 바 아닌데다가 그 때문에 해지의 효력이 발생하 기까지 남은 6개월의 기간 동안 단체교섭의 진행이 방해받을 이유는 없었던 점, ④ 사 업장의 특성상 업무의 대체가 용이하지 않아 한국♧♧♧의 대응에는 한계가 있을 수밖 에 없었던 점 등을 종합할 때 , 공중의 일상생활이나 국민경제에 큰 영향을 미치는 필 수공익사업을 경영하는 한국♧♧♧로서는 노조가 위와 같은 부당한 목적을 위하여 순환파업 및 전면파업을 실제로 강행하리라고는 예측할 수 없었다고 평가함이 타당하 고, 비록 그 일정이 예고되거나 알려지고 필수유지업무 근무 근로자가 참가하지 아니 하였다고 하여 달리 볼 것은 아니다.

Furthermore, given that a large number of trains are suspended due to the suspension of a large number of trains operations throughout the country, and as long as a large number of substitute personnel are forced to continuously put in the train so as not to cause serious damage to the daily life or economic activities of the people using the train, it is obvious that it causes serious confusion or enormous damage to the business operation of the KoreanB.

Ultimately, examining this in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, circular and full-scale strike is a force that may suppress and confuse the free will about the continuation of the business of one countryGB, a user, and is sufficient to regard it as a force of the crime of aiding and abetting operations. Furthermore, it is difficult to recognize it as a legitimate act. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s allegation in this part is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, among the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor's appeal on the part other than the obstruction of business on September 8, 2009 by the defendant △△△△△△, △△△△△, △△△△△, △△△△, △△△, is justified and the above part of the judgment of the court below has been reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it has been ruled again as follows. The prosecutor's remaining appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Discretionary Judgment】

Criminal facts

[2010 Highest 170]

on April 4, 2012, Defendant 1 was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution in the Jeju District Court for the crime of interference with business, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 28, 2013.

피고인 ○○○은 한국 본부 QQ역 수송원 4급으로서 전국 노동조합 ( 이하 노조'라 함 ) ○○지방본부 00역 · 열차연합지부장 및 노조 ○○지방본 부 부본부장, 피고인 □□□은 한구♧♧♧ 본부 00기관차승무사업소 기관사 4급 으로서 노조 ○○지방본부 기관차승무지부장, 피고인 ●●●은 한국BB

본부 QQ차량사업소 차량관리원 5급으로서 노조○○지방본부 QQ차량지부장, 피고인 ◆◆◆는 한국BBS 본부 장비운영사업소 토목 5급으로서 노조 이○ 지방본부 ①0시설지부장, 피고인 ☆☆☆은 한국♧♧♧ 본부 00 열차승무사업소 사무영업 4급으로서 노조 ○○지방본부 ①0 · 열차연합지부 00열차지회장, 피고인 ▽▽▽은 한국♧♧♧ * 본부 민둥산 전기사업소 전기관리원 5급으로서

노조 ○○지방본부 총무국장, 피고인 ▼▼▼은 한국♧♧♧ 본부 00역 수송원 4 급으로서 노조 ○○지방본부 00역 · 열차연합지부 총무부장, 피고인 △△△는 한국♧♧♧ 본부 00전기사업소 전기통신 3급으로서 노조 ○○지방본부 00 전기지부장, 피고인 ♤♤♤은 한국♧♧♧ 본부 00 전기사업소 전기통신 6급으로 서 노조 ○○지방본부 00전기조합원, 피고인 ▷▷▷은 한국♧♧♧ 본부 0 ①기관차승무사업소 운전 4급으로서 노조 ○○지방본부 QQ기관차승무지부 비상 대책 위원장이다.

1. 피고인 OOO, OOO, ●●●, ◆◆◆, ☆☆☆, ⑦⑦7, ▼▼▼의 2009. 11. 5. ~ 6.

Interference with Business

AB The policy on the promotion of public enterprises, such as withdrawal of reduction in the number of employees, is based on the high-level or light judgment of the management subject, and matters belonging to the management right, reinstatement of dismissal, accusation, accusation, withdrawal of disciplinary action, withdrawal of lawsuit for compensation for damages, etc., shall not engage in a strike to accomplish such argument as matters belonging to the unique area of rights of the management unrelated to the determination of working conditions, but shall not engage in a strike to secure the proper human resources and maintain the prescribed number of employees, and the short-term cooperation on personnel reduction consultation shall not be conducted because there is disagreement as to the determination of working conditions.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인들은 노조 중앙쟁의대책위원장인 + + 명의의 " 전 조합원은 11월 5일부터 지역별 순환파업에 돌입하라" 라는 투쟁명령 3호에 따라 5,115 명 정원감축 철회 등 공기업선진화 반대와 해고자 복직, 고소·고발 및 징계철회, 손해 배상소송 철회, 단협개악 반대 등을 주장하면서 2009. 11. 5. QQ역 광장에서 파업출 정식을 개최하고, 2009. 11. 5. 09:00경부터 같은 달 6. 09:00경까지 출근을 하지 아니 하는 방법으로 집단으로 노무제공을 거부하여 여객열차 6대, 화물열차 124대의 운행이 중단되도록 함으로써 화물운송 수입 등 한국♧♧♧에 283,380,120원 상당의 재산상 손 해를 입게 하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with 6,790 union members and interfered with BB's transportation of passengers and freight by force.

2. 피고인 ●●●, ◆◆◆, △△△, ♤♤♤, ▼▼▼, DDD의 2009. 11. 26.~ 12. 3. 업

Non-Obstruction

BB The policy on the promotion of public enterprises, such as withdrawal of reduction in the number of employees, is based on the high-level or light judgment of the management body, and matters belonging to the management right, reinstatement of dismissal, accusation, accusation, withdrawal of disciplinary action, withdrawal of lawsuit for compensation for damages, etc., shall not engage in a strike to accomplish such argument as belonging to the unique area of rights of the management that is irrelevant to the determination of working conditions, but shall not engage in a strike to secure appropriate human resources, maintain the prescribed number of employees, and provide cooperation on reduction in the number of employees, unless there are matters relating to the determination of working conditions.

Nevertheless, the Defendants asserted the advance objection of public enterprises, such as withdrawal of the full number of 5,15 personnel reduction, such as withdrawal of the 5,115 personnel reduction, reinstatement of dismissed persons, accusation and disciplinary action, withdrawal of damages lawsuit, etc., while refusing to provide labor in a group in the manner of not taking place due to garbage-based activities from November 26, 2009 to December 3, 2009, natural protection campaigns, 140 passengers train members and train employees, 28 days, and 28 days, in accordance with the strike order 4 of the total number of workers in the public sector.

이로써 피고인들은 노조 조합원 11,790여명과 공모하여, 위력으로써 ♧♧♧의 여객 · 화물 수송 업무 등을 방해하였다.

[2010 Highest 335]

3. Interference with business affairs from November 26, 2009 to December 3, 2009, by Defendant ▽▽▽△△, and OO

As part of the advancement of public enterprises on October 10, 2008, the Government shall reduce the business balance of B from 6,41.4 billion won to 50% in 2007 to 6,41.4 billion won in 2010, shall be converted to black in 2012, and shall promote privatization if the business balance of B falls short of the objectives of management improvement by 2010.

B♧ 효율화 및 일부 계열사 통합을 발표하였고, 2008. 12. 22. 한국♧♧♧ 정원 5,115 명 감축을 비롯하여 공기업의 기능 정원 등 조정에 의한 인력 효율화, 자산매각 등 경 영효율화, 운영시스템 개선, 계열사 인력효율화 등을 발표하였다.

BB established a detailed action plan for the advancement of the SB, such as reduction of 5,115 personnel, around January 2009, according to the above government's advancement of public enterprises.

On the other hand, while the Trade Union was launched on March 1, 2009 by a new executive organ with the chairman on March 1, 2009, it set up 8 advanced policy preventing the 5,115 human resources reduction and restructuring at the regular representative conference of the Trade Union and Labor Relations on March 26, 2009, 8 public nature strengthening, dismissal, reinstatement of dismissal, etc. as core objectives and strategies.

BB held a board of directors on April 23, 2009 in accordance with the government's measures for the advancement of public enterprises, and decided on the agenda for restructuring B by up to 2012, such as reducing the number of 5,115 persons. On the same day, the Trade Union immediately posted against the 5,115 human resources reduction, and against the advancement of public enterprises, the Korean BS board of directors' regular meetings were held on April 25, 2009, and on April 25, 2009, held "the 2,50 union members participated in the development of public enterprises, 5,115 staff reduction and welfare reduction, the Incheon Airport fundamental measures, the democratization of public enterprises, compensation for damages, and the occurrence of labor unions, etc."

The Trade Union's executive organ, such as the chairperson of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Committee, argued the advancement policies of public enterprises through strike, assembly, and collective bargaining, that is, the suspension of dismissal, reinstatement, etc., but the private side appears to be unable to accept on the ground that the government's planned work schedule for the advancement of public enterprises was about the government's policies or management rights. The government's planned work schedule from November 21, 2009 to November 28, 2009 was postponed on November 4, 2009, and the government's planned work schedule for the advancement of public enterprises at the government's advanced work site on November 8, 2009, again held the Central Standing Committee on October 12, 2009 and the National Committee on the Promotion of Public Enterprises on October 29, 2009 to meet the guidelines for the 10th 20th 10th 20th 29th 10th 29th 29th 200.

In addition, on November 18, 2009, the executive branch of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Division held the committee for the expanded dispute at the Trade Union and Labor Relations Mediation Office as of November 18, 2009, and finally decided to start up with the indefinite strike from November 26, 2009.

On November 21, 2009, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, through the Central Committee for Countermeasures against Disputes's receipt of the chairperson + 39's Guidelines for the 29th century, "all union members are in the strike completely indefinite from November 26, 200 if the negotiations of wages and collective agreements were finally displayed in 09. The hours of strike are from November 26 to 04:00 of the class work, the day duty and shift duty are from 09:00 of the class work, the day duty and shift duty are from 26th day to 28th day to 1st day to 26th day to 1st day to 20th day to 1st day to 20th day to 20th day to 26th day to 20th day to 20th day to 20th day to the general public sector's order to complete the revision of the Convention, which infringes on the maintenance of adequate human resources and the reduction of human resources."

이에 따라 홍靈은 에게 '투쟁지침 39호'와 '투쟁명령 4호' 를 8 노조 ○○지 방본부 산하 각 지부에 하달하도록 지시하고 , 피고인 ▽▽▽과 ☆ 등 노조 ○ ○지방본부 집행부 및 피고인 ○○○ 등 산하 지부장들과 파업 참가 조합원 이탈 방지 책 등 세부 파업 계획을 논의하고, 피고인 ○○○ 등은 각 지부 소속 조합원들에게 위 와 같은 내용을 전파하여 2009. 11. 26. 04:00부터 파업에 돌입할 것을 독려하였다.

The advancement policies and airport takeovers, such as the reduction of the number of employees of BB, are based on the high-level determination or management judgment of ○○ enterprises, and the matters of management rights fall under dismissal, reinstatement, dismissal, dismissal, accusation and withdrawal of disciplinary action, withdrawal of lawsuit for compensation for damages, etc., shall not be engaged in any strike to accomplish such claims, which are matters belonging to the scope of limited rights of the managers who are irrelevant to the determination of working conditions, and shall not be engaged in any strike to secure adequate human resources, maintain the prescribed number of employees, and hold consultations on reduction of the number of employees, unless there are any disagreements about the determination of working conditions.

그럼에도 불구하고, 피고인 ▽▽▽, ○○○을 비롯한 8 노조 집행부로부터 위와 같 은 지시를 받은 8 노조 조합원 11,700여명은 위 '투쟁명령 4호' 에 따라 2009. 11. 26. 서울역 광장, 대전역 광장, 부산역 광장, 순천역 광장, 동해역 광장에서 개최된 파업출 정식에 참가하여 5,115명 정원감축 철회 등 공기업 선진화 반대와 공항 인수 반 대, 해고자 복직, 고소·고발 및 징계 철회, 손해배상소송 철회 등을 주장하면서 2009. 11. 26.부터 2009. 12. 3.까지 파업출정식 참가, 체육행사 참가 등으로 전국 284개 사 업장에 출근을 하지 아니하는 방법으로 집단으로 노무제공을 거부하여 새마을 등 여객 열차 999대, 화물열차 1,742대의 운행이 중단되도록 함으로써 영업수익 손실과 대체인 력 보상금 등 한국♧♧♧에 9,667,088,000원 상당의 재산상 손해를 입게 하였다.

이로써 피고인 ▽▽▽, ○○○은 靈靈發, 등 노조 조합원 11,790여명과 공모하여, 위력으로 OOO의 여객·화물 수송 업무 등을 방해하였다.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

가. 피고인 OOO, ●●●, ◆◆◆, ⑦⑦7, ▼▼▼: 각 형법 제314조 제1항, 제30조

(Selection of Fine)

B. Defendant Dogsung, △△, △△△, Don, D: Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Punishment)

Fixture Selection)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

피고인 ○○○, ●●●, ◆◆◆, ⑦7⑦, ▼▼▼: 각 형법 제37조 전단, 제38조 제1

subsection 2, and Article 50

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2)1 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

The labor union strike of this case was conducted in a peaceful way that does not involve violence, and the union members were expected to have made efforts to reduce the damage to the people due to their failure to participate in the strike. The fact that the collective agreement was concluded between BBS and CS labor union around May 14, 2010 after the instant case, the collective agreement was concluded in favor of the Defendants.

However, as seen earlier, the degree of illegality of the labor union strike of this case is not easy, the period and scale of the labor union strike and the full-scale strike of this case are not small, and it seems that considerable damage to BB was caused thereby, and the fact that the people, who are the actual recipients of the labor union of this case suffered a big inconvenience due to the labor union strike of this case, are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

In addition to the above circumstances, taking into account the Defendants’ status as a union member and the position at each strike, the records of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, or the confirmation of the judgment sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment, age, environment, occupation, family relationship, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, and various conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the records after the crime of this case, are to be sentenced as ordered.

Efforcence

St. H. L.C.