(b) The case holding that a speech that leads to a strike against trade union members in the industrial action and that the creation of relief and labor prices constitutes an act of intervention by a third party as provided in Article 13-2 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act;

B. A third party made a speech to the effect that “worker is a non-party class. The worker must take part in the requirements by means of a strike by cutting down any longer than that of the parties to the strike,” and in the event of the creation of relief and labor, he/she participated in an industrial action as a third party.

1. As to the application of the limitation on industrial action against defense industry enterprises

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant was the chairman of the labor union and the regional democratic labor union of the non-indicted stock company located at 10: the above company was designated as the defense industry company on December 21, 197. Thus, since the workers of the above company were not capable of engaging in industrial actions, the above company's collective bargaining from around April 1989 to the above company's wage increase, but the above bargaining : 10 billion won was decided to achieve the increase proposal presented by the labor union through industrial actions; 640 workers who reported industrial actions around May 4 of the above year to 0: 10, around 11, 165 of the above month; 1,343 workers from around 12, 133, 128, 125, and 10: 20,000 workers who did not work for more than 10 hours before the above industrial action was closed.

(2) Article 33(1) of the Constitution stipulates that the right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action of workers, which are three fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, may not be limited or recognized as the right to collective action of workers engaged in major defense enterprises under the conditions as prescribed by the Act. However, even in cases where the right to collective action of workers engaged in defense industry enterprises is restricted or prohibited by the Act (hereinafter referred to as the “restricted act”), such restriction should be limited to the case necessary for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare, and it is clear in light of the purport of Article 37(2) of the Constitution, which is the limit of the legislation restricting fundamental rights.

However, Article 12(2) of the Act on the Special Measures for Defense Industry provides that a worker engaged in a defense industry designated in accordance with the Act on the Special Measures for Defense Industry may not conduct industrial actions. Articles 2 and 4 of the Act on the Special Measures for Defense Industry provide that a defense industry enterprise refers to an enterprise which produces (referring to manufacturing, processing, assembling, repairing, recycling, improving, or altering materials supplied for the military; hereinafter the same shall apply) and is designated by the Government after meeting the facility standards and security requirements prescribed by the Presidential Decree. In light of the necessity and limit of the Act on the Restriction of Basic Rights as stated above, Article 37(2) of the Constitution, even if a defense industry enterprise is designated as a defense industry enterprise, it does not temporarily suspend or suspend the manufacture of defense materials, and even if the designation of a defense industry enterprise remains without revocation, it does not constitute a defense industry enterprise under Article 12(2) of the Act on the Special Measures for Defense Industry.

(3) In light of the witness testimony of the court of first instance employed by the court below in this case and the record of the prosecutor's protocol of the prosecutor's preparation of the same person and the record of the special judicial police officer's protocol of the investigation of the previous Y as to the previous YY bound by investigation records, the non-indicted stock company was designated as a defense industry company around December 21, 197, and the designation was cancelled as of September 1, 1988, but the industrial action in this case was completed on September 1, 1989, but only 7,8 employees who completed the whole dissolution of the special development department of the defense industry, which had already been in charge of the defense industry business, had been terminated on April 1, 198, before the industrial action in this case occurred. Thus, if the decommissioning of the special development department is not simply reduced, temporarily suspended or suspended, it is difficult to apply the prohibition of industrial action even before the designation of the defense industry company was cancelled.

Although the court below should have deliberated more on the above points and judged whether the non-indicted corporation can be seen as a defense industry subject to the prohibition of industrial action, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prohibition of industrial action under Article 12 (2) of the Trade Dispute Adjustment Act and the incomplete deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the designation of a defense industry company was not yet revoked without any name.

2. As to the third party entry

Examining the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below in light of the records, it is justified in the judgment below that the defendant made a speech against the union members of the Port Hospital in the East National University, such as the time of the original adjudication, that "workers shall be the underprivileged, and the demands shall be met by the strike by making a collective action against the union members of the East National University, which is in the industrial action, such as the time of the original adjudication, and that a third party has committed an act of inciting an industrial action as to industrial action, such as providing relief and the creation of labor, such as inciting a violation of the rules of evidence or insufficient deliberation, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the third party's intervention, such as mere consultation, assistance, and advice. The arguments are groundless.

3. As to the obstruction of business and the violation of law

According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant, like the time of the original trial, has interfered with the duties of the management staff by force, and that he has conducted industrial actions that interfered with the normal operation of the workers by obstructing the normal operation of the labor union in order to accomplish the demands of the labor union concerning special bonuses without obtaining the consent of the majority by direct, secret, and secret ballot by force of the labor union, and that there is no violation of the rules of evidence or mistake of ratio, such as the theory of litigation

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal on the above 1 ground of appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)