The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The Defendant is a Grade 6 local public official in extraordinary civil service with the △△△△△△△△△△△, and a national public official labor union (hereinafter referred to as “major labor union”) ○○○ City Head.

From July 19, 200 to 17:00 on the same day, Nonindicted Party 1 member of the Democratic Labor Party, Nonindicted Party 2 member, Nonindicted Party 3 member of the Democratic Labor Party, Nonindicted Party 4 representative of the Democratic Party, Nonindicted Party 5’s Chairperson, Nonindicted Party 6’s former Chairperson, Nonindicted Party 1,100 members belonging to the National Teachers’ Union (hereinafter “former”) and 150 members belonging to the National Democratic Workers’ Union (hereinafter “Public Workers’ Union”), 10 members belonging to the National Teachers’ Union, 100 members belonging to the Major Labor Union, 100 members belonging to the National Teachers’ Union, and 50 members belonging to the court and labor union, the former Teachers’ and Public Officials’ Assembly was held as the society of Nonindicted Party 14 in charge of the former Teachers’ and Public Officials’ Union.

Nonindicted 7, 8, and 9: (a) went on the top with the chairman of the Jeon school assistant Nonindicted 10; and (b) Nonindicted 7 made a speech that “public officials are subject to the Assembly and Demonstration through a newspaper advertisement; (c) public officials’ labor union was made; and (d) Nonindicted 8 made a speech that “Korean public officials’ labor union was made with remuneration force and this regime to have a flag in a way consistent with this regime; and (d) Nonindicted 10 made a speech that “I would endeavor to recover democracy in their original state. Public officials, teachers, and citizens will make efforts to see the present government.” By making a speech that “The purpose of the Assembly and Demonstration against Teachers and Public Officials’ Labor Relations Act was prohibited by the State Public Officials Act, etc., the government’s accusation and disciplinary action against the previous teachers and public officials’ labor union was withdrawn, and the present government judgment was made.”

On the other hand, the participants in the assembly took out the relief of “the MB MB Act was prevented by the Assembly and Demonstration,” and used a paper hat in which the political relief of “the Declaration of the State”, “the Si Declaration, the Suspension of Ammunation”, “the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 5th class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 5th class of the 5th class of the 5th class of the 5th class of the 5th class of the 5th class of the 1

On this day, the Seoul Square, a meeting place, containing the political arguments that “The 976 dismissed will prevent all workers from taking advantage of their future, pair of layoffs,” and labor, “I will comply with the Democratic Party of Economic Peace between South and North Korea democracy,” and “MB adjudication and university students’ behavior solidarity for democratic recovery” were distributed.

In the assembly of this day, the Defendant participated in the assembly of teachers and public officials’ training in the assembly with Nonindicted 11, 12, and 13 as well as other major employees of the company, and participated in the assembly of teachers’ and public officials’ training in the assembly of the same manner as the members of the company belonging to the public sector, major labor union, court labor union, and full-time teachers’ training.

2. Determination

Under the premise that Articles 82 and 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act apply to the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor indicted the accused on the violation of the Local Public Officials Act. In light of the relevant provisions of the Local Public Officials Act, Article 2 of the Local Public Officials Act classify the public officials of the local government into those in career service (public officials appointed by performance and qualification and whose status is guaranteed) and those in non-career service (public officials other than those in career service), and Article 3(1) main text of Article 3(1) provides, “The provisions of this Act are Articles 31, 44 through 46, 46-2, 46-3, 47 through 59, 61, and 79 through 79 shall not apply to those in non-career service, except as otherwise provided for in this Act and other Acts, the provisions of Articles 6(1) of the Local Public Officials Act concerning disciplinary action and other provisions concerning public officials in non-career service are not applied mutatis mutandis under the Local Public Officials Act, but are not applied mutatis mutandis to those provisions concerning public Officials Act.

Therefore, comprehensively considering the structure of the Local Public Officials Act and the principle of no punishment without law that the penal provisions should be specific and clear, Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act prohibiting collective action against all public officials under the Local Public Officials Act is applicable, but Article 82 of the Local Public Officials Act, which is a criminal punishment provision for such violation, does not apply to public officials in career service and public officials in non-career service (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4331, Oct. 26, 2006).

On the other hand, according to the records, the defendant can recognize the fact that he is a public official of Grade VI in extraordinary civil service who works for ○○○ △△△△△△, and is a public official in non-career service under the Local Public Officials Act. Thus, Article 82 of the Local Public Officials Act, which is a criminal punishment provision, cannot be applied to the defendant who is a public official in non-career service on the ground that he violates Article 58

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case cannot be punished as the above penal provision, it constitutes a case where a crime cannot be committed, it is judged not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided not to disclose the summary of this decision pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Cho Jae-sung