[집회및시위에관한법률위반][하집1990(3),465]
Where an employee's emergency response committee has passed a resolution to hold a meeting for wage negotiations with the employer but the above meeting was actually conducted under the lead of the vice-chairperson, etc. who is not the representative, the organizer who shall be liable to report the meeting.
In a case where there are 1,00 workers, family members, etc. of the mining center and 1,000 members of the existing labor union are organizations separate from the existing labor union, and the defendant was elected as the chairperson, and if the same committee passed a resolution to hold a meeting on the following day, even if the defendant was unable to attend the meeting before the above meeting was held and the above meeting was held under the direction of the vice-chairperson, etc. of the committee, the organizer who is liable to report the meeting shall be deemed the defendant, who is the representative of the committee, and shall not be deemed the vice-chairperson, etc. who actually attended the above meeting and led it.
Articles 2, 6, and 22 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act
Defendant 1 and two others
Defendants
Yeongdeungpo Branch Court of Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (Supreme Court Decision 90Gohap502 delivered on July 1, 201)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The issue of whether an outdoor assembly is an outdoor assembly shall not be determined by the nature of whether it is an assembly being conducted in a place where there is no ceiling or all sides are not closed, but by the authorization of an assembly being held inside by the general public by blocking the assembly place from outside to a certain extent of people with a specific purpose. The assembly of this case is held within the fence of the patrine Mining Center, and only the workers belonging to the patrine Mining Center gather within the fence of the patrine Mining Center for the purpose of improving the labor conditions, and thus, it shall not be deemed an outdoor assembly. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of law by deeming it an outdoor assembly as the chief of the competent police station, and by holding that the chief of competent police station is obliged
B. The " promoter of an assembly" who is obligated to report an outdoor assembly refers to a person or organization holding an assembly under his/her own responsibility under his/her own name. Although the members of the Masung Mining Complex trade union are gathered in the Masung, it is not voluntarily organized by the Defendants, the court below erred by misapprehending that the Defendants held the assembly of this case.
C. In light of the fact that: (a) the lower court set up a committee for the promotion of the improvement of the labor conditions of the Masung Mining Center, which is not related to the instant meeting, and determined that the said committee was holding the instant meeting in order to exercise the initiative in labor-management division; and (b) the Defendants, members of the said committee, who were members of the said committee, were sentenced to heavy punishment, such as a sentence or a suspended sentence of imprisonment, but actually, the said committee was not related to the instant meeting; (c) the instant meeting was carried out in a peaceful progress and completed; and (d) the Defendants were in a position to support their family members, the lower court’s sentence against
2. Determination on the grounds for the above appeal
A. First, as to whether an outdoor assembly is an outdoor assembly, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that an outdoor assembly refers to an assembly in a place where there is no ceiling or all sides are not broken off. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, it can be seen that the place of the assembly in this case was the front of the coal construction work site, the mining site, and the head of the competent police station’s duty to report is justified.
B. Next, we examine whether the defendants are obligated to report the above assembly.
(1) According to the main sentence of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act,
A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, etc. to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours prior to the filing of the report, and according to the first sentence of Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the same Act, the organizer refers to a person or organization holding the assembly under his/her own responsibility under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the same Act. Article 22 of the same Act provides that if an organization hosts the assembly, the representative shall be deemed the organizer in the application of penal provisions
(2) When the Defendants’ statements at the court below 10: The 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 6th 1st 1st 1st 1st 6th 1st 1st 2th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 190 1st 1st 2th 3th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 10th 3th 3th 10th 3th 3th 10th 3th 2nd 10th 3th 3th 3th 10th 3th 2nd 10th 3th 10th 3th 10th 2nd 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 3th 24th 10.
(3) According to the above facts, the assembly of July 26, 1990 shall be held voluntarily without the organizer, and the second emergency response committee of the 27th following day shall be deemed to have been organized by Defendant 1, the representative of the committee, pursuant to Article 22 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (as of July 27, 1990, Defendant 1 did not attend the assembly but the person liable to report the assembly of the 48 hours before the assembly does not need to directly attend the assembly). Accordingly, the assembly of July 26, 1990 shall be held by three defendants, and the assembly of the 27th following day shall be held by Defendant 2 and 3, respectively, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the appeal by the defendants shall be justified in this respect.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.
The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is without reporting the outdoor assembly and demonstration to the chief of the competent police station.
1. The Defendants conspired to:
At around 10:00 on July 26, 1990, Nonindicted 3 announced the 90-year final wage negotiation resolution of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee prior to the above mining area, the executive branch of the union, and the Emergency Countermeasure Committee prior to the above 14th day before the date of the 1990-day Special Committee, and subsequently announced the dissolution of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee for the normal work. On the contrary, the Defendants sold the employees to the above organization with the awareness that the existing Emergency Countermeasure Committee violated the workers' right to lead labor-management rules of the above mining area by continuously opening an assembly to which they belong, and to this end, Defendant 1, the Vice-Chairperson, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, etc., Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 2, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, etc. were removed from the planning department, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, etc. did not have the right to lead labor-management committee to silize the 30-day Special Committee.
2. Defendant 2 or 3 conspired,
On 27. 10:00 of the number of workers and their family members, etc. from around 10:00 to the same place, the Defendants led to the removal of coal rationalization policies that enable the withdrawal of democratic labor union disputes, the removal of wages without labor, such as 9.2% basic pay and the removal of wages without labor without labor, and singing such as “mining parts and strikes,” and holding an outdoor assembly by 14:00 on that day in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the Defendants were acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.
Judges Park Jong-hee and Noh Jeong-hee