(a) Multiple injury resulting from obstruction of performance;

B. Special obstruction of performance

(c) Interference with business;

(d) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

(e) Damage to public goods;

(f) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(g) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(h) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Noncompliance with joint withdrawal);

(i) Violation of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc.;

(j) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively damaged, deadly damaged or damaged objects);

(k) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(l) General traffic obstruction;

(m) Intrusion into a structure;

2.A.(c)(f)(k)(b);

3A.h. C

4 Ghana. D

5 Ghana.(c) E

6.A.F

7A.Ra Raz. Cara.ta.m. G

8.C. H

9.C. I

10.(c) J

11.h. K

12C. L.

13.h. M

14.C. f. N

15.(c)O

160(g) P

17.C. Qua

18C. R

19.C. S

20.(c) T;

21.C. U.S.

2.c. D. V.

23.C.W

24.C. X

25.c. f. Y

26.C. Z.

27.(c) AA

28.c. AB

29.(a)(d)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)

30.(c) AD

31.c. AE

32.(f) AF

3.C. AG

34.C. AH

35.CAI.

36.C. AJ

37C. AK

38.c. AL

39c. AM

40(h)N

41(h) AO

42 (h) AP

43.C. A Q

4.AR

45.C. AS

46.c. AT

However, the execution of each of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years for Defendant A, C, D, E, F, and VI, and for Defendant B andC, for three years for each of the two years for each of the above sentence. Defendant H, I, J, K, L, L, M, M, P, P, Q, Q, Q, T, U, W, X, Y, Z, AAB, AE, AE, AE, AF, AH, AH, AK, AK, AL, AM, N, AP, Q, AP, AS, and AS shall be ordered to provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant AI is not guilty.

Summary Table)

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant A is a representative of the National Metal Trade Union AW Branch (hereinafter referred to as the "AW Branch") and a member of the countermeasures committee, Defendant B is a chief site chairperson of the AW Branch, Defendant C is a member of the AW Branch, Defendant D is a member of the AW Branch, Defendant E is a vice head of the AW Branch, Defendant E is a vice head of the AW Branch, and Defendant F is a member of the AW Branch.

1. Defendant A

(a) Interference with business;

On April 4, 2012, AW Subdivision elected G as the president of the branch, and requested Hyundai Motor Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Modern Motor Vehicle") to enter the Ulsan Factory for the reason that it is the president of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the modern Motor Vehicle. However, Hyundai Motor was refused to enter the Ulsan Factory for Hyundai Motor on the ground that the executives of the AW Subdivision were dismissed.

Therefore, from April 9, 2012 to the 18th day of the same month, the World Motor Association demanded a factory entry guarantee in front of the Ulsan Factory, and developed a strike for old-age accommodation. On April 18, 2012, Hyundai Motor was allowed to enter the factory on condition that it does not commit a tort only against 13 persons, such as AW Branch G.

On September 21, 2012, from around 10:30 on September 21, 2012 to around 12:10 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) in collusion with 20 members of the AW branch; (b) demanded all association members to allow factory access in front of the head office of the Ulsan District Factory, Ulsan District; and (c) sought to enter the due door by pushing together all association members in front of the Ulsan District, Ulsan District; and (d) attempted to interfere with the duties of the security guards belonging to the modern automobile by force, such as the escape of the avoided security guards; and (b) interfere with the duties of the victim's access control.However, the damage of public goods was caused by force.

On October 24, 2012, around 18:40 on 18:40, the Defendant: (a) had an interview with the head of Ulsan Dong Police Station, the head of the investigation station, the head of the investigation department, and six members of the AW branch, including the Defendant and the head of the principal site of the AW branch, with regard to arresting the G of the G of the Ulsan-dong Police Station in the Ulsan-dong Police Station, the Ulsan-dong, the Dong-dong, the Dong-dong, the Dong-dong, the Dong-dong, the Dong-dong, the Dong-dong, the Dong-dong, the Dong-dong, the Dong-dong, and six members of the AW branch, such as the Defendant and the head of the AW branch of the AW branch, and the head of the AW branch, and the head of the investigation department, “this weather ............” while taking a bath to the effect that it has unfolded so, damaged the goods used by the public office equivalent to repair cost.

2. A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report on the assembly to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

On October 24, 2012, from October 15:50 to 20:30 of the same day, the Defendant, in front of the Ulsan East East-dong Police Station 666-1 located in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, the Defendant, without reporting to the chief of the Ulsan-dong Police Station, was holding an assembly, such as taking care of the society, raising labor price, and holding an assembly, such as holding an annual scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sche

3. Joint criminal conduct of Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F

On October 24, 2012, at around 18:30, the Defendants: (a) tried to enter the police station’s door while arresting G with 120 members and 120 members of the Ulsan Eastern Police Station; and (b) prevented the entry of auxiliary police officers belonging to the Ulsan District Police Agency AX and police officers belonging to the Ulsan East East East Police Station; and (c) prevented Defendant F from entering the police station. The Defendant F was 3-4 vehicles of the Defendant AY(20 years of age) 3-4 vehicles, which were cited by the victim AY (a auxiliary police officer belonging to the Busan District Police Agency AX) on the ground that he prevented entry into the police station. Defendant C was able to kill the victim AZ(21 years of age) who was an auxiliary police officer belonging to the same company, and caused the victim AZ (a auxiliary police officer belonging to the same company), leading him to drinking, leading him to drinking.

Defendant B continued to duplicate the highest amount of the police officers, and collected the police bA (the age of 29), which was an auxiliary police officer belonging to the same company, and had the victim B B (the age of 24) who was a captain of the same company belonging to the same company, was able to take the face of the victim B (the age of 24) in his hand, and Defendant D had the face of B B 3-4 times by drinking, and the scam going beyond the next floor by walking the vessel.

Defendant A DaD (the 32 years old) who is a police officer of the Ulsan East Police Station BC Team lest the auxiliary police officer may attract the members of the Association, put the police room, which is a dangerous thing located far away from the floor, into the hands of the Association, and put the head of the above BD . The head of the Association . The head of the Association . BD 24 years old. The Defendants conspired with the above members of the Association 120 members of the Association . The members of the Association . BG Association 32 years old, the members of the Association . BG Association 20 days old, the members of the Association . The members of the Association . BG Association 20 days old, the members of the Association . The members of the Association : the members of the Association . The members of the Association 20 days old, the members of the Association . The members of the Association . The members of the Association . The members of the Association 27 weeks old, the members of the Association . The members of the Association .

On June 13, 2013, Defendant 1 was sentenced to two years of the suspended sentence to 4 months of imprisonment for the crime of interference with business in this court, and Defendant S was sentenced to two years of the suspended sentence to 1 year of imprisonment for the crime of interference with business in this court on June 2, 2011, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 11, 2012. Defendant AJ was sentenced to two years of the suspended sentence to 10 months of imprisonment for the crime of interference with business in this court on June 2, 2011, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 11, 2012. Defendant AP was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence to 6 months of imprisonment for the crime of interference with business in this court on February 22, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 19, 2013.

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report stating all the matters concerning the purpose, date, time, place, etc. to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

A. On January 4, 2012, from around 17:45 to 18:20, the Defendant took part in the union members of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee in the street in front of the headquarters of the Ulsan Metropolitan Factory, Ulsan Metropolitan City, 700, in which approximately 65 members of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee participate, and “the members of the branch are going to be a society of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee Y,” and “the members of the branch are going to divide into Korea.” On January 13, 201, in the on-site inspection, the Defendant asserted two factories, but we are asserting two factories, but we have to carry out one factory inspection. At the inter-branch conference with the branch, there was a statement that the principal agent should take the same place immediately. If several minutes are trusted, the Defendant would take part in this strike if he believed to do so, thereby strengthening the communication with the dismissed party at the site, and the members did not report the above outdoor assembly to the end.”

나. 피고인은 2012. 2. 1. 17:30경부터 같은 날 18:15 경까지 위 울산공장 본관 정문 앞 노상에서 비상대책위원회 조합원 약 80여 명이 참가한 가운데 비상대책위원회 조합원 J의 사회로 '조합원 결의대회'를 진행하고, 조합원 BH는 "앞으로 수요집회를 본관 안에서 하도록 열심히 조직을 추스르겠다. 조합원들의 기를 살리고 반드시 현장을 조직화하여 열심히 싸워나가겠다."고 발언하고, 전국금속노조 현대자동차지부 BI는 "정규직 비정규직이 똘똘 뭉쳐서 연대하여 함께할 때 투쟁 승리 가능하다. 현대자동차지부도 AW 지회와 불법파견 함께 고민하고 함께 연대투쟁할 것이다. AW지회와 같이 하는 총파업 투쟁만이 정규직화 승리가 가능하다."는 발언을 하고, 위 조합원들은 투쟁가를 제창하는 등 신고를 하지 아니하고 옥외집회를 주최하였다.다. 피고인은 2012. 2. 8. 17:40경부터 같은 날 18:25 경까지 위 울산공장 본관 정문 앞 노상에서 비상대책위원회 조합원 약 60여 명이 집결한 가운데 비상대책위원회 조합원 AM의 사회로 '조합원 결의대회'를 진행하면서 비상대책위원회 조합원 AG는 "1월말부터 2월초까지 서울에서 희망뚜벅이 일정에 참가하면서 많은 동지들이 연대하는 것을 보았고, 우리 울산에서도 우리의 투쟁을 알려 노동계는 물론 많은 시민사회단체가 연대할 수 있도록 한다는 다짐을 했다."고 발언하고, 피고인은 "우리가 투쟁을 만들고 함께 할 때만이 승리할 수 있다. 지금 당장 투쟁이 힘들지만 서로 단결해서 불법파견 철폐 정규직화 투쟁 승리하자."는 발언을 하고, 위 조합원들은 투쟁가를 제창하는 등 신고를 하지 아니하고 옥외집회를 주최하였다.

D. On February 15, 2012, from around 17:30 to 18:30 of the same day, the Defendant continued to hold a meeting of members of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee to be a society of AG while 50 members of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee were on the street in front of the main office of the Ulsan Factory, and the members Q of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee made the 2,23 BJ-dong decision. The Defendant made the fighting of all workers, not regular or non-regular workers, into the fighting, and made the fight and tried to discuss how non-regular members of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee members B-K, “In front of the final judgment of the BJ branch, it would be illegal temporary placement.” The Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment that the present intra-company subcontractor would have to go back once again, and did not report the fight to hold a factory.”

E. On February 22, 2012, from around 17:30 to 18:30 of the same day, the Defendant, while continuing to hold a meeting for the resolution of the members of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee to the society of AG while approximately 60 members are on the street in front of the main office of the Ulsan Factory, the Defendant was in charge of the resolution of the members, and the Defendant was in charge of the chairman of the BG. Although he tried to do so, he has not dealt with it. There are only one person for the composition of the enforcement department, and there are a lot of dialogues at the branch. In recent years, one labor union-related survey was conducted at the branch. There are still members who do not have been a search among the members of the branch office. The statement that the removal of illegal dispatch to the sub-branch and the removal of the above members was defective, and the above members did not hold an outdoor assembly without filing a report, such as creating a strike.

F. The Defendant, from around 17:30 on March 7, 2012 to 18:25 on the same day, had approximately 140 members of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee in the street in front of the main text of the Ulsan Factory, and the Defendant continued to hold a “resolution of union members to the Yn Society”, and the Defendant, “a branch of the company to the private side, has come to fall into confusion once again. Our role is that the executive branch has to form an executive branch. There was an executive branch. There was an executive branch. There was an organization of the original branch. On March 17, 2012, the Defendant decided to control illegal dismissal and employment of non-regular workers. On March 17, 2017, the Yong-Namnam Workers’ Republic of Korea was opened. The Defendant made a statement that the officers would be elected to the end-time, and the above union members did not hold an outdoor assembly without filing a report on the removal of non-regular workers and the creation of a new organization.”

G. On March 14, 2012, from around 17:35 to around 18:20 the same day, the Defendant did not report to the 20th Egyptian members of the U.S. factory to the Y Society while the 250 members of the U.S. Committee were on the 20th Egyptian Industrial Complex BL was ruled on February 23, 201, but BM did not speak in advance of the people. The maximum goal of the 20th Egyptians is the 1st century and the 2nd Egyptians. The Defendant did not know how to open the 3rd Egyptians to the 20th Egyptians. The Defendant did not know how to open the 1st century to the 20th Egyptians. The Defendant would open the 1st century to the 20th Egyptians and to take part in the 2000th century.

자. 피고인은 2012. 3. 28. 17:30경부터 같은 날 18:10경까지 위 울산공장 본관 정문 노상에서 비상대책위원회 조합원 약 200여 명이 집결한 가운데 Y의 사회로 '4대 임원 선거 합동연설회'를 진행하면서 피고인은 "대법원에서 모든 사내하청노동자는 정규직이라 판결했는데 현대차는 그것을 무시하고 현장에서 꼼수를 부리고 있다. 전혀 우리에게 정규직 명찰을 달아줄 생각이 없으며 정규직의 명찰은 우리 스스로 쟁취할 수 밖에 없다. 거기에 마땅한 우리의 대응과 투쟁이 있어야 한다. 다시 한번 현장의 조합원들이 연대하여 나서야 할 시기인 것 같다. 현대차가 정규직화 이행하도록 하고 우리 손으로 주간 연속 2교대제를 만들어야 한다. 더 많은 조합원을 가입시켜 공장을 점거하지 않고도 공구 하나만 놓으면 정규직화될 수 있게 현장에서 더욱 조직화 되도록 하자."는 발언을 하는 등 신고를 하지 아니하고 옥외집회를 주최하였다.

(j) On April 4, 2012, from around 17:30 to around 18:10 of the same day, the Defendant took part in the 'resolution of members of the emergency countermeasure committee members to the society of AC with respect to the occupation and occupation of the first factory', and the member AP of the emergency countermeasure committee filed a complaint from modern companies and issued a warrant of arrest. The Defendant was forced to voluntarily attend the police station in the past of the Supreme Court's illegal recognition of the temporary dispatch. This organization again reconvened the organization and reconvened the power of permanentization.' The Defendant prevented non-reconvening the company from entering the company during the recent non-reconvening period. The necessity of the reconvening the wrong media and other facts was not reported to the end, and the Defendant did not report it to regular workers."

5. The business obstruction AW branch decided to be regratized until the factory entry is permitted, among the members of the members of the GW branch in modern automobiles, to control the entry of the dismissed in the Ulsan factory. From April 9, 2012 to April 18:3, 2012, members of the AW branch decided to be regatized. From around 08:53 to 18:30 of the same month, members of the AW branch made up approximately 20 to 30 members of the BW branch in front of the main book of the Pulsan factory and the fourth factory, with approximately 20 to 20-30 members of the AW branch in front of the main book of the CW branch and the fourth factory, “BM suspended unfair labor practices and guarantee entry into the Hyundai AW branch.” The members of the AW branch laid down a banner, i.e., e., the CW branch to temporarily convert workers from the floor of the BW branch into a regular worker.

(a) Joint principal offenders of Defendant G, B, H, Y, and AD;

On April 9, 2012, at around 08:53, the Defendants created relief with approximately 10 members of the AWD shop in front of the main house of the Ulsan Factory, and attempted to enter the factory, using the passage door through which the Obain and bicycle enter the factory, and carried out 25 minutes of b5 minutes of b5 minutes of flaps.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with about 10 members of the AW branch and interfered with the duties of the security guards belonging to the modern automobile by force.

B. The co-principal committed by Defendant G, B, H, I, J, L,O, P, R,S, U, V, X, Y, Z, AA, and AD

On April 9, 2012, at around 09:35, the Defendants created relief with approximately 17 members of the AWD Conference in front of the main entrance of the Ulsan Factory, and attempted to enter the factory, using the passage door through which the Otoba and bicycles enter, and carried out 10 minutes of the 10-minute of the flaba and the flaba.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with approximately 17 members of the AW branch and interfered with the duties of the security guards belonging to the modern automobiles by force. Defendant G, B, H, I, J, L,0, P, R, S, U, V, W, Y, Z, AA, Z, AA, AB, AB, and AD shared offenses by Defendant G, B, H, J, L, P, P, P, VI, M, Z, AA, Z, AB, around April 9, 2012, the Defendants created relief with approximately 17 members of the AW branch in the street in front of the head office of the U.S. factory in the U.S., and pushed them into body with the 15-minute fluor of security guards who prevented them from entering the factory.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with approximately 17 members of the AW branch and interfered with the duties of the security guards belonging to the modern automobile by force.

D. On April 9, 2012, Defendants G, E, H, I, J, L, P, R, S, V, X, Y, Z, AC, and AD co-offenders created relief with approximately 20 to 30 members of the AW branch in the street in front of the main entrance of the foregoing Ulsan Factory on the street, and used the passage door in which the AW branch and the bicycle have access to the factory, and carried out the 7-minutes of security guards who prevented them from entering the factory.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with approximately 20-30 members of the AW branch, and interfered with the duties of the security guards belonging to the victims' modern automobiles by force.

E. On April 9, 2012, Defendants G, E, H, I, J, L,O, P, S, V, X, Y, Z, AA, AC, and AD co-offenders created relief with approximately 20 to 30% of the members BN, BO, and BO in front of the four factories of the above Ulsan Factory, and carried out relief with the passage door of the security guards who attempted to enter the factory and prevented the amount of 20 minutes of the 20 minutes of the 20 minutes of the flab and bicycle.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with approximately 20-30 members of the AW branch, and interfered with the duties of the security guards belonging to the victims' modern automobiles by force.

(f) The co-offenders of the Defendant G, B, H, I, L, N, Q, Q, R, T, X, X, Y, AE, AF, AH, AH, AH, Q, AR, Q, AS, and AT

On April 13, 2012, from around 07:42 to around 07:57 the same day, the Defendants created relief with approximately 40-50 members, such as AW Assembly members BP, in front of the main text of the Ulsan Factory, and Defendant G made a statement to “on the site”, and Defendant G attempted to enter the factory, using the passage door where the stoba and bicycles enter the factory, and carried out 20 minutes of the b0 minutes of the 20-minutes of the security guards preventing them from doing so.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with approximately 40-50 members of the AW branch, and interfered with the duties of the security guards belonging to the victims' modern automobiles by force.

G. Defendant G, B, E, H, J, P, S, U, Y, Z, AA, AC, AJ, AL, and AM co-principal offenders from May 16, 2012 to 18:50 of the same day, Defendant G, E, H, H, H, J, Y, Z, the Defendants created relief with approximately 230 members of the AW branch Q, etc. on the street in front of the main stream of the relevant Ulsan Factory, from May 16, 2012 to 18:50 of the same day. Using the passage door in which the AW branch members B Q, etc., attempted to enter the factory and prevented the Defendants from doing so.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with approximately 230 members of the AW branch and interfered with the duties of the security guards belonging to the modern automobile by force.

(h) Co-principal activities by Defendant G, P, S, and AC

From around 12:20 on May 17, 2012 to 13:23 of the same day, the Defendants created relief with approximately 20 members of the AWD conference members BN, BP, etc. on the street in front of the head office of the Ulsan Factory, and attempted to enter the factory by using the passage door in which the Obato and the bicycle enter the factory, and pushed down with the body of the security guards blocking them. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with approximately 20 members of the AWD Association and interfered with the duties, such as the control of access by the security guards belonging to Hyundai Motor, by force.

6. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(a) The co-principal committed by Defendant H, N, S, Y, AF, and K;

The Defendants attempted to enter the factory at the same date, time, and place as described in the above paragraph 5 (f) above, and Defendant H sealed the body of the victim BR (the age of 43), which is security guards, by hand, and Defendant S was pushed down and pushed down with bU’s bU (the age of 31), which is a security guard, with breath’s hand, and was towed by 10 meters, and turned over the floor. Defendant AF bU (the age of 46)’s chest bU (the age of 46) with the right bU’s bU (the age of 33), and Defendant N bU(the age of 33), bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s bU’s 30 and 2). The Defendants 2.

B. The co-principal of the defendant B, AM, and Z

The Defendants attempted to enter the factory at the same date, time, and place as mentioned in the above 5, and as above, Defendant AM, a security guard, had the victim BV (the age of 51), who was the security guard, put the BV into the elbow, knife, knife knife, and knife knife knife knife knife with hand, and Defendant B, a security guard, expressed the bW (the age of 48) of the victim B (the age of 48), and put the chest of the victim BX (the security guard), which was the security guard, over the sealed floor by tightly knife.

As a result, the Defendants, in collaboration with approximately 230 members of the AW branch, suffered injury to the victim BV, such as sprinke damage and sprinke, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment, such as spatum catum, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment to the victim BW, and multiple spatum ties, etc. requiring approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim BX respectively.

7. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint violence) by Defendant P;

The Defendant attempted to enter a factory at the same date, time, and place as described in the foregoing paragraph 5 (h) above, and took a bath to the victim BV, who was a security guard, who was prevented from entering the factory, at the same time and place as described in the above paragraph (h), and took the bath, and taken the knick and bucks by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim jointly with approximately 20 members of the AW branch.

8. Defendant G

(a) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit to the competent police station or the head of the competent police station a report stating all the matters concerning the purpose, date, time, place, etc. of the outdoor assembly or demonstration from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing the outdoor assembly or demonstration

From around 07:00 on April 9, 2012 to 07:45 on the same day, the Defendant held an attendance promotion team for 'regularization demand' in front of the main door of the Ulsan Factory, from around 07:0 to around 07:45 on the same day, from that time, up to April 18, 2012, up to 18:30 on the floor, the Defendant 'BM 'BM 'bropsphers on the floor' with the content that 'prophersphersphers and 'in-house workers are suspended from unfair labor practices and guarantee access to the AW Branch's meeting as regular workers, and attempted to enter the company and provide relief outside the company.

The defendant held an outdoor assembly without reporting it in a manner of sacraticity, such as making a statement that "I would be able to enter and enter the company," but I would be able to enter and leave the company."

(b) Violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information;

On May 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) had members of the AW Branch Association who are unable to know their names at the AW Branch Office located in the AW Branch Office located in the GNM 700, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, U.S. on May 18, 2012 using a computer installed therein for the purpose of slandering Hyundai Automobile Security Cooperation Corporation, LofM BY and the above GNM; (b) although under the influence of the BY, there was no fact at the time in the GNFM BY’s use of the computer installed therein; (c) “I” used an act of assaulting the BNM’s access to the GNM’s GNM’s GNM Y while under the influence of the BY; (d) in particular, BY disclosedd the microf Y’s price head and co with BL used in the BY, thereby impairing the victim’s reputation with the purpose of impairing the BNM’s work.

9. On June 14, 2012, Defendant G, I, J, K, L, M, N, Q, Q, R, T, V, E,N, C, AO, and AP demanded an interview with the head of the U.S. Forest Office at the Busan District Employment and Labor Office located in the Nam-gu Busan District Office, Ulsan District Office, requiring “BM detention, demands for the closure of illegal dispatch of the place of business, and interviews with the head of the U.S. Forest Office.”

At around 15:10 on the same day, at the third floor meeting room of the Ulsan District Office, six Defendant G et al. had been interviewed with the CAB of the Busan District Office. However, the interview with the CA was occupied by the rest room of the first floor and the passage of the first floor. On the same day, around 18:33, the victim was demanded to change from the CB of the Ulsan District Office of the Busan District Employment and Labor.

From 18:33 to 21:00 on the same day, the Defendants jointly refused to comply with the demand of the victim to leave from a police officer without justifiable cause until a flagrant offender is arrested by a police officer, and the Defendants continued to demand a trade union consisting of workers belonging to the Ulsan Factory Cooperative in Hyundai Motor Vehicle to convert all employees belonging to the intra-company subcontractor into regular workers. On February 23, 2012, the Defendants issued a ruling of reversal and re-transmission to the effect that "employment is deemed to have been employed since the company received illegal dispatch and used for more than two years for two years," which became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court on February 23, 2012.

The decision of the Supreme Court against the above BJ was required to the effect that all workers of the in-house subcontractor should be transferred to regular workers immediately, regardless of whether they are directly engaged in the production process, since they apply to all workers of the in-house subcontractor in the modern automobile factory.

The AW branch and the Hyundai Motor are both special agreements over 16 times from May 15, 2012 to June 26, 2013. However, the Supreme Court's decision on the BJ only applies to only one person, and it cannot be viewed as illegal dispatch solely on the ground that they work in Ulsan Factory regardless of the form of work.

Therefore, Hyundai Motor was newly employed by 3,500 employees of in-house collaborative companies until the first half of 2016, and at the same time, it was admitted that the employees of in-house collaborative companies who have been sentenced to illegal temporary placement for more than two years by the court will be converted into modern automobile full-time employees, and the agreement was not reached in the special consultation process.

On October 17, 2012, during the special consultation process, H, a member of the WJ and office, demanded the immediate transition of all workers of the cooperative companies in the city, and started high-air farming. On June 26, 2013, where high-air farming continues, it was proposed that high-air farming workers, such as the National Union Federation of Workers' Unions, BJ, BG, and CE, enter a factory and pipeline to the effect that it is difficult for high-air farmers to enter the factory to use the above 3th of July 4, 2013, and to use the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd.

10. Defendant B, G, and AC’s violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a collective or lethal weapon registration) (a damage, etc.) was committed on July 20, 2013, CK of the Ulsan District Headquarters of the National Democratic Trade Union: (a) around 19:00, on the road in front of the Hyundai Motor Master's Magdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-do.

Defendant G continued to use a microphones listed above the broadcast broadcast, and called “I am shot at the end until the end. I gathered in this place to show our decentralization.” After speaking to BM, approximately 300 demonstration units, such as the members of the NMMM Chapter CL, I am going to the front, “I am going to the front. I am going to the front. I am to the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front. I am to the front of the front of the front of the front of the instant front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the third of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the present.

As a result, the Defendants appeared to have multiple power with approximately 300 demonstration units, and damaged the victim's modern automobile ownership price of about 28 million won by breaking about 25m of pents.

11. Defendants B, G, and AC’s crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapon, etc.) and at the same time, at the same place as indicated in paragraph (10) above, laid iron pents, and thus, modern vehicle employees and security guards, who were located near the pents of the Ulsan Factory in Hyundai Motor Vehicles, were gird and prevented the entry into the factory. Accordingly, Defendant G directed Defendant AC to force approximately 30 persons of the demonstration unit, who had caused the death of Defendant AC, to attack modern vehicle employees.

이에 피고인 AC는 방송차에 올라타 마이크를 이용하여 시위대를 향하여 "만장 든 동지들 앞으로 선봉 앞으로 하겠습니다. 선봉 앞으로, 때려, 때려, 때려, 뒤로, 뒤로 만장 뒤로 빱니다. 1열 뒤로 빠지고 2열 준비합니다."라고 지휘하였다. 피고인 AC의 지휘에 따라 피고인 G, 1공장 CM, 조직차장 AC, 전국금속노동조합 충남지부 현대자동차 아산공장 BG지회장 AS 등 시위대 약 300명은 위험한 물건인 죽봉을 들고 서 있거나, 선두에서 현대자동차 직원들을 향하여 죽봉, 쇠파이프 등을 휘두르거나, 소화기, 볼트, 얼린 생수병, 돌 등을 던졌다. 피고인 B은 시위대 약 300명과 함께 현대자동차 직원들을 향하여 축봉을 휘두르고, 내리쳤다. 또한 피고인 AC도 이에 가담하여 위 시위대 약 300명과 함께 현대자동차 직원들을 향하여 죽봉을 휘두르고, 내리쳤다.

As a result, the Defendants appeared to have multiple power with approximately 300 demonstration units, and used the death finite, which is a dangerous object, thereby causing injury to the victims CN(30 years of age) by causing about 3 weeks of treatment, such as damage to face, etc., as shown in the attached list of crimes (1).

12. Crimes causing bodily injury resulting from the obstruction of special performance of official duties by Defendant B, G andC;

From July 20, 2013, around 20:30, the Defendants developed a violent demonstration with approximately 300 demonstration units as described in the above 10:11 at the same place, and the police officers entered the demonstration unit to dissolve the demonstration unit.

The defendant G directed about 300 police officers from entering the demonstration team to prevent them from entering the demonstration team, and the defendant AC directed about 300 police officers to leave the demonstration team, and the last part of the police officers was displayed, or died.

Defendant B, along with approximately 300 police officers of the demonstration team, displayed the final part of the police officer, or died.

As a result, the Defendants appeared to have multiple power with approximately 300 demonstration units, and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers regarding the suppression of violence and demonstration by carrying dangerous objects with the police officers, such as assaulting them, and thereby, the victims CP (age 44) who are police officers belonging to the Daejeon District Police Agency, the District Police Agency, and the COF units receive an open status, etc. of the part in need of approximately 3 weeks of medical treatment as shown in the attached list of crimes (2). On the 13th day, the Defendants suffered injury by 10 police officers, as shown in the attached list of crimes against the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

(a) A person who participates in an assembly or demonstration shall not carry or use guns, explosives, swords, iron bars, bricks, stones, or any other apparatus which may cause harm to the life or body of any other person, or carry or allow other persons to carry or use such apparatus, or disturb order by means of violence, intimidation, destruction or damage, fire prevention, etc.;

Nevertheless, at the same time and place as indicated in paragraphs 10 through 12 above, the Defendants, along with about 300 demonstration units, collapseed approximately 25 meters of the market price by sticking with wire ropes on the pents wall in the same manner as above, and throwing pents around 28,00,000 won to the modern vehicle employees, stringing the pents, strings, with the strings, with the strings, or with the string, with the strings, with the strings, with the strings, with the strings, or with the strings, with the strings, with the strings, with the strings, or with the strings, the strings, strings, ices, and strings, or with the strings, with the use of the strings, with the use of the strings, or with the destruction of order.

(b) With respect to an act of carrying or using a gun, explosives, swords, iron bars, bar bars, bricks, or other apparatus that may cause harm to the life or body of any other person, or an act of having other person carry or use it, or an act of causing other persons to carry or use it, or an act of disturbing order by violence, intimidation, destruction, fire prevention, etc., the head of the competent police authority may demand voluntary dispersion within a reasonable time, and when ordered dissolution, all participants shall dissolve without delay;

The Defendants occupied the roads at the same time and place as described in paragraphs 10 through 12 above, with approximately 300 demonstration units, and occupied the roads at the same time and place as described in the above paragraphs. By the above method, they laid the pents wall with the wire ropes of approximately 25m in the market price of 28,000,000, pents and pents, bring modern vehicle employees, display the strings, strings, strings, strings, strings, strings, and strings, with a fire extinguishing machine, fire extinguishing, V, ice frokes, stones, etc., and were killed. Accordingly, the police officer’s order was issued by the head of the Ulsan-gu Police Station on the 20th day of the 20th day of the 30th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the 20th day of the assembly or demonstration, or on the 20th day of the 20th day of the assembly or demonstration.

However, 300 demonstration groups, including the Defendants, refused to comply and failed to dissolve without delay.

14. They shall not damage or fire the land, waterway, or bridge for the crime of general traffic obstruction by Defendant G and AC, or obstruct traffic by other means.

The Defendants participated in the 'National Federation of Labor Unions' resolution with approximately 3,00 demonstration units around July 20, 2013, from around 18:10 to 21:35 on the same day while occupying the 4th line road in front of the front and right-hand parking lot in the Hyundai Motor Village, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do.

In that place, the Korean Democratic Trade Union Federation member Q made a statement that "The end will be fighted up until the end for the elimination of non-regular workers, it will also be democratic labor union," and that "BL of the Hyundai Automobile Branch of the Korean Metal Trade Union will fulfill its responsibilities and solidarity for the resolution of non-regular problems". Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with approximately 3,00 members of the demonstration team and interfered with the passage of land.

15. Crimes of impairing the structure of Defendant G and AC;

On May 31, 2012, the Hyundai Motor Vehicle and the Hyundai Motor Vehicle Branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union guaranteed 13 persons, including the Defendants, including the officers of the AW branch, including the Defendants, to enter the offices of the AW branch and the AW branch, and when entering the site, the officers of the branch office or the representatives of the relevant business branch are accompanied by them, and enter the factory support team (at night, on duty) after giving notice to them: Provided, That this is agreed that the branch office is responsible for peaceful assemblies, such as questions, assemblies, and visits, to ensure that peaceful assemblies are held without concerns over the establishment of the company, such as the occupation of the facilities.

On May 15, 2013, Hyundai Automobile sent an official door to the Hyundai Automobile Branch to the effect that "AW Branch is engaged in various illegal assemblies and acts of violence, so it is not necessary to further enhance the permission of access to the number of persons permitted to continue illegal activities." On July 3, 2013, Hyundai Automobile sent an additional official door to limit access to dismissed persons on the ground of AW Branch's illegal acts.

On August 7, 2013, the Defendants issued a warrant of arrest on the victim Hyundai Motor Station, which was located in Ulsan-dong 700, U.S., Ulsan-dong 700, to the above nuclear demonstration of nuclear power units. Since the Defendants are the dismissed, they were boarding on the vehicles of the members of the Hyundai Metal Trade Union's Department, whose name cannot be known, and entered the Hyundai Motor Vehicle Branch's trade union office.

Summary of Evidence

2013Gohap82

【No. 1-A' in the market】

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. A copy of the investigation report (a copy of the complaint);

【No. 1-A, 2, and 3 points in the market】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, C, D, E, and F;

1. Each police statement made in relation to BD, CR, BE, B, AY, Z, and BA;

1. A written statement of the CS and CT;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. AZ diagnosis document;

1.B Damage photographs 2013, 178,

[No. 4]

1. The defendant V's partial statement

1. Current status of report, non-reported assembly photographs;

[The points of paragraphs 5 through 7, 8 in the market]

1. Defendant B, E, G, H, I, J, L,O, P, R, S, V, W, X,Y, Z, AB, AC, AE, AE, AF, AH, AH, AJ, AK, AL, AM, Q, AR, and AS, written prosecutor's statement concerning the CU;

1. Each police statement on BR, BS, BT, BU, BW, X, and BV;

1. Each investigation report and reporting on the current status of the resolution competition;

1. Each injury diagnosis letter;

1. The current status of each complaint filed, each photograph, published copy, decided copy, notification of illegal matters related to the sagradity and farm, and daily assembly;

[Entry in Section 8-B at the Time of Sales]

1. Defendant G’s partial legal statement

1. Each police statement about BY and CV;

1. An investigation report (report on posting notices on the website of the current Council);

1. Each complaint filed or each Internet printed material;

[No. 9]

1. The defendant G, I, J, K, L, M, N, Q, R, T, V, E,N, C, AO and AP each legal statement;

1. Requests for cooperation in investigation related to failure to comply with each investigation report, the visit to the port of the Ulsan Labor Site Office at the Hyundai Staffhouse;

1. Copy of a request for eviction, formulation of emergency duty plans 201, 299;

[The points of paragraphs 10 through 14 at the time of market]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant B, G, and AC;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning P;

1. A copy of each protocol of examination of suspect for each police officer under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as CL, CW, CY, CY, CY, Z, Z, DA, DB, DC, DD, DD, DD, DE, CM, E, DM, DM, DG, Y, DH, DJ, DJ, DK, DK, DM, DM, DM, DSS, DSS, DP, DP, DTR, DSS, DSS, DSS, DU, DU, DV, DV, DV, DW, DH, EB, EEC, EB, EF, EF, EM, EM, EM, EM,K, EM, EM, EM, EM, EM, EPE, EPE, and EPE;

1. CU, ETS, EU, EV, EW, EX, EY, and Z: 1. FA, FB, FC, FD, FE, FG, FJ, FJ, FM, FM, FK, FM, FF, FM, Qu, FF, pu, FFR, FFR, FFR, FFF,, FI, FV, FV, FF, FFF,,, GB, GG, GB, GB, G, GD, GB, GH, GH, GI, GI, G, GF, G, GV, G, GV, GV, GN, GN, GM, and other copies of the report, respectively, without any description of the suspect's report related to such report, and any copy of such report, each of the facts reported by the police officer, each of the facts reported, each of the facts reported, each of the facts reported, each of the facts reported, each of the facts reported, GH, GPE, GIF, G voluntarily, and p.

1. A copy of each medical certificate, a copy of each medical treatment confirmation, a copy of each medical treatment confirmation, a copy of each medical record, a copy of each medical record, a separate medical record, a copy of each written statement, a written estimate, a copy of each photograph, each photograph, each photograph, a copy of an outdoor assembly report, a copy of the reception of an outdoor assembly report, a copy of the reception of the outdoor assembly report, a press conference relating to the Democratic Nowon-gu Regional Headquarters in Ulsan Central Headquarters in Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( dated 12, 2013), a plan for a desired bus published in this paper, a program for a democratic Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and a testimony to be presented to an Arabic undergraduate university published in this paper;

【No. 15's point of sale】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant G and AC;

1. Statement by the police against the CU;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Complaints and written agreements;

[Prior Records at the Time of Sales] Investigation Report (Attachment Report to the Judgment of the suspects involved in this case), Application of the Act on Criminal Reference Data

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 144(2) and (1), and 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 144(2) and (1), and 136(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the same Act

B. Defendant B: Articles 22(2) and 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 144(2) and (1), and 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 144(2) and (1), and 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 2(2) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 3(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 366(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 3(1) and (2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 3(1) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 3(1) and (2)3)3 of the Punishment of the Act, and Article 5(1) of the Criminal Act.

C. Defendant C: Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 144(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 136(1) of the same Act; Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 319(2) of the Criminal Act (a) of the same Act. Defendant D: (i) Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act; (ii) Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of the same Act; (iii) Articles 144(2) and (1) of the same Act; (iv) Articles 136(1) of the same Act (a) of the same Act

(e) Defendant E: Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 144(2) and (1), and 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 2(2) and 319(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 319(2) of the Criminal Act (a)

(f) Defendant F: Articles 144(1) and 136(1) of each Criminal Act (the point of obstructing performance of special duties), Articles 144(2) and (1), and 136(1) of each Criminal Act (the point of causing obstruction of performance of duties by special duties)

(g) Defendant G: Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 22(2) and 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.; Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 319(2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 319(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 366 of the Criminal Act; Articles 32(1) and 6(1)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Article 70(2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.; Article 314(1) and (2)1 of the Criminal Act; Article 36 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 36(1) and (3) of the Criminal Act; Article 257(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc.; Article 28(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act

(h) Defendant H, S, Y, and Z: Articles 314(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Article 2(2) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (a point of joint injury)

(i) Defendant I, J, L,0, Q, R, and T: Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with business), Article 2(2) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(2) of the Criminal Act (a point of non-compliance with joint retirement)

(j) Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 319(2) of the Criminal Act

(k) Defendant N: Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 2(1)3 of the Criminal Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 319(2) of the Criminal Act

(l) Defendant P: Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act

(m) Defendant V: Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 22(2) and 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 2(2) and 311 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 319(2)1 of the Criminal Act; Articles 314(1), 30(1), and 36(1)1 of the Criminal Act; Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 314(1) and 36(1)1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Articles 36(1) and 36(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 31 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Articles 30(2) and 36(1)1 of the Criminal Act; Articles 36(1) and 37(1) of the Criminal Act’s punishment of the Act by force, etc.

1. Punishment imposed on Defendant A, C, D, E, G, and F under Articles 40 and 50 (Punishments on the respective crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, on the special crimes of causing bodily injury to the victim BD, each of which is the largest punishment, on the charges of causing bodily injury to the execution of special official duties, on the charges of causing bodily injury to the victim BD, and on the charges of causing bodily injury to the execution of special official duties, on Defendant B, each of which is higher than 2013 height82, on the charges of obstructing the execution of special official duties, on each of which the special crimes of causing bodily injury to the victim BD, each of which is the largest punishment on the crimes of causing bodily injury to the special official duties, on each of which the crimes of causing bodily injury to the special official duties, on the crimes of causing bodily injury to the victim BD, which are the largest punishment on the respective special official duties under Article 2013 height 201, on the punishment against Defendant G, and on the punishment against the special injury to the victim A, each of the highest criminal injury to the victim

1. Selection of punishment (other Defendants than Defendant D and F);

A. Defendant A, C, and E: Determination of imprisonment with prison labor for each crime except for the crime resulting from a special obstruction of public duties

(b) Defendant B, G, and AC: Imprisonment with prison labor for each of the remaining crimes except for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the damage, etc. to a group or a deadly weapon), the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (injury to a group, a deadly weapon, etc.

C. Defendant H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, Q, R, T, U, W, X,Y, Z, AB, AE, AE, AF, AH, AJ, AM, AM, N, AP, AP, Q, AS, and AT: Each sentence of fine is punished. Defendant V is each sentence of imprisonment.

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant I, S, AJ, AP);

Articles 37 (latter part) and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: The concurrent offender to the extent that the punishment is aggregated with the punishment stipulated in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment shall be the maximum of the maximum penalty for causing bodily injury resulting from the serious obstruction of performance of official duties

B. Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 (a) of the Criminal Act (aggravated Punishment on the part of the victim who is the largest punishment), 38(1)2 and 50 (a) of the Criminal Act (aggravated Punishment on the part of the victim who is the largest punishment). Defendant C is concurrent crimes to the extent that the punishment is added to the punishment stipulated in the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 (a) of the Criminal Act to the extent that the punishment is added to the punishment stipulated in the crime of causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing causing resulting

(e) Defendant G and AC: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with punishment provided for in the offense of bodily injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties, the most severe punishment and crime)

(f) Defendant H, S, Y, AF, and AK: The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravated Punishment of Violences, etc. against Victims BT of the largest punishment and imprisonment)

(g) Defendant I, L, and R: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to the punishment and imprisonment with prison labor as determined by the crime of interference with business on April 13, 2012, which are the largest penalty)

(h) Defendant J: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the heavier punishment and punishment than punishment, as provided for in the crime of interference with business on May 16, 201)

(i) Defendant N: the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 50 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. against the Victims B with the largest punishment, being concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act);

(j) Defendant 0: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to the punishment and concurrent crimes committed on April 9, 2012, with the largest penalty)

(k) Defendant P: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the maximum punishment and punishment)

(l) Defendant Q and T: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes resulting from the crime of interference with business heavier than punishment)

(m) Defendant U and A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the most severe penalty for a crime committed on May 16, 2012)

(n) Defendant V: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to the penalty and concurrent crimes committed on April 9, 2012, with the largest penalty)

(o) Defendant W: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in the crime of interference with business as of April 10, 2012 with business with a heavier penalty)

(p) Defendant X: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the heavy penalty for concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed by the crime of interference with business on April 13, 2012)

(q) Defendant Z or AM: Violation of the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act, and the Punishment of Violences, etc., Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., against Victims BW with the largest criminal situation (Aggravation of concurrent crimes as provided for in the crime of joint injury);

(r) Defendant AB: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (the penalty heavier than that prescribed by the crime of interference with business on April 13, 2012)

(s) Defendant AD: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the severe penalty for a crime committed on April 9, 2012)

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, AC) under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of each Criminal Act (Defendant H, I, J, K, K, M, M, N, P, Q, R, T, U, W, X,Y, Z, AB, AD, AE, AE, AH, AH, AJ, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AM, AP, AP, Q, AS, and AT);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, V, and AC)

1. Determination as to the defendants and their defense counsel's arguments under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (defendant H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, T, U, W, X,Y, Z, AD, AE, AE, AF, AH, AJ, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AM, APE, AP, AP, Q, AS, and ATS)

2013Gohap82

1. Part concerning obstruction of business as set forth in a judgment No. 1 (Defendant A);

A. Summary of the assertion

The officers, representatives, etc. of the AW branch, who were dismissed by the Defendant, etc., were illegally dispatched for more than two years, and were in the position of workers of modern automobiles in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court's decision. The National Labor Relations Commission applied for remedy for unfair labor practice to the National Labor Relations Commission. According to the collective agreement concluded with the Hyundai Motor Vehicle and the regular branch, the entry was guaranteed when the regular branch was requested by the regular branch, but the regular branch was requested by the regular branch, so the Defendant, etc. was not entitled to access the factory, and therefore, the Defendant, etc. did not have the value of protecting the victim's modern motor security guards' access control duties

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court’s adopted and investigated evidence, it is reasonable to deem that the duty of security guards intending to refrain from such act is worth protecting the Defendant’s business, and that the act of abusing force constitutes a obstruction of the Defendant’s business, and that it cannot be seen as a legitimate act. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted, even if the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2008Du4367 Decided July 22, 2010 on the status of non-regular workers is applied uniformly to all union members, and even if considering the purport of Article 2 subparag. 4(d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act on the status of union members who filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy, the number of union members at the AW branch members at all AW branch demand the permission of factory access of all union members at the AW branch and the act of seeking access to the factory is not permitted.

2. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (Defendant B) No. 2 of the holding;

A. Summary of the assertion

Since the assembly of this case is so-called a so-called 'convening meeting', there is no obligation to report.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court, i.e., ① the assembly of this case was held at the time when the assembly of this case was held frequently due to sanctions against the AW branch activities, ② the number of members who were arrested who gathered in front of the police station and the Defendant prepared and used via a ampample, microphones, etc., it is difficult to recognize the instant assembly as a contingent meeting. Even if it is a contingent meeting, it cannot be said that there was no duty to report even if it is a contingent meeting. Therefore, the above assertion is rejected.

“2013Gohap178

3. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (Defendant V) No. 4 of the holding;

A. Summary of the assertion

This part of each assembly is a rally for the resolution of the union members, which is a part of the union activities. In light of the fundamental rights of the Constitution, the freedom of assembly and demonstration, which is fundamental rights of the Constitution, and the purpose of guaranteeing three labor rights, it does not constitute an assembly subject to reporting under the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, and even if the obligation to report on domestic affairs exists, it constitutes a justifiable act that

B. Determination

According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, the defendant held each of the assemblies of this case in the form of occupying roads over about 10 times for about 3 months by many members of the AW branch. This part of the assembly cannot be viewed as a case where obligation to report is exempted, and it is difficult to view it as a justifiable act. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

4. A through (f) of the holding, the part concerning interference with the affairs of the Ah (Defendant G, B, H, Y, AD, I, J, L,O, P, R, S, U,V, X, Z, AAB, E, Q, Q, AE, AE, AF, AH, AH, Q, ATR, AS, and AT);

A. Summary of the assertion

The Defendants were illegally dispatched for not less than two years, and were in the position of workers of modern automobiles according to the purport of the Supreme Court's decision, and were pending at the National Labor Relations Commission by filing an application for remedy for unfair labor practice with the National Labor Relations Commission. According to the collective agreement concluded with the modern automobile and the regular branch, the entry was guaranteed if requested by the regular branch, but the regular branch requested entry, so the Defendant, etc. was not entitled to protect the victim's modern automobile security guards' access control duties, and therefore, the Defendant's act to resist this constitutes a legitimate act.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court: ① at the time, the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2008Du4367 Decided July 22, 2010 on the status of non-regular workers is not to be determined uniformly applied to all union members of the AW branch; ② Even if considering the purport of Article 2 subparag. 4 (d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act on the status of union members who filed an application for unfair dismissal remedy, it cannot be deemed that the act of the members of the AW branch requested the permission of factory access of all union members of the AW branch and the act of the members of the AW branch to enter the factory cannot be deemed to be permitted; and not only the AW branch officers but also other union members of the 2008Du4367 decided July 22, 2010 on the status of non-regular workers, and the defendant's act by force constitutes interference with the business, and thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

5. Part concerning interference with the business of the matters set forth in the holding (Defendant G, B, H, J, P, S, U, E,Y, Z, AA, AC, AL, AM, and AJ);

A. Summary of the assertion

Since security guards of the victim company interfere with meetings unfairly, such as smugglinging the members of the AW branch who had already entered the factory, they cannot be deemed to be a business worthy of protection, and the acts of the defendants who resisted against this is a legitimate act.

B. Determination

According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, since the defendants were allowed to enter a factory in order to have approximately 230 members of the AW branch and the members who were allowed to enter a factory in order to attend the KaW branch resolution meeting, the defendant's act is recognized as being worth protecting the duties of the security guards who intend to restrain them from entering the factory, and as they were allowed to enter the factory from the victim security guards, their bridges are cut off. Thus, the above assertion cannot be accepted since the defendants' act by force constitutes interference with their duties and cannot be seen as a legitimate act.

6. The part concerning violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the defendant N, S, AF, B, AM, and Z) in the judgment No. 6.

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant N did not get off the part of the Victim BU, Defendant S did not 10 meters of the Victim BS, Defendant S did not see the chest of the Victim BT, Defendant AF did not tightly damaged the Victim BW, Defendant AM did not do so by blucing the Victim BV with a blue with a blue or with a blue with a blue with a blue with a blue, and Defendant Z did not bX over the Victim BX with a shoulder.

B. Determination

According to each of the above evidence in the BU, BS, BT, BW, BV, B, and B, or in this court, the above assertion is rejected as it can be sufficiently recognized as facts charged.

7. Part 8 of the Judgment in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (Defendant G);

A. Summary of the assertion

This part of the assembly was conducted as part of the trade union's activities, and it does not constitute an assembly subject to the duty to report under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and even if there is a duty to report household affairs, it constitutes a justifiable act that was done in front of the modern automobile sentiments by the trade union's activities.

B. Determination

According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, the defendant held each of the assemblies of this case in the form of occupying roads from April 9, 2012 to April 18, 2012 by multiple members of the AW branch. This part of the assembly cannot be deemed as a case where the obligation to report is exempted, and it is difficult to view it as a justifiable act. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

8. Part of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defendant G);

A. Summary of the assertion

The purpose of this article is to eradicate unfair labor practices and to eliminate unfair labor practices, so illegality is dismissed as it is solely for the public interest.

B. Determination

According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, although the defendant stated that the report of the fluenite of the Hyundai Motor Branch was made, the defendant stated that the report of the fluenite was made, but the fluenite of the Hyundai Motor Branch stated that "the expense of the service was teared, the head was broken down, and the fluenite was turned down, and the fluenite was turned down until the age of the fluenite." However, the article of this case stated that "the fluentar's GNM BY of the service company GNM belonging to the flusco exercised a fluenous violence because it was done against the modern branch BZ," it appears that the defendant did not confirm the facts stated in the fluenite report of the Hyundai Motor Branch. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant made a statement of false facts, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant's act was merely a mistake for the public interest.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant B, G, and AC W Branch demanded from around 2003 to convert non-regular workers into regular workers. In the course of the Supreme Court’s decision on July 22, 2010 and the 2010 Supreme Court’s decision on the BJ, a non-regular worker, there are grounds for considering the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, such as committing each of the instant crimes, etc.

However, as long as the Defendants committed each of the instant crimes by continuously and repeatedly using illegal and violent means despite the history of punishment for the same kind of crime, the Defendants may not be held liable for the corresponding liability.

Defendant G was led to each of the crimes of this case as the president of the branch of the WW branch. At the time of committing the crimes of this case from 10 to 14 of the judgment, Defendant G instructed the preparation for the death, wire ropes, etc. to break away the front wall of the Hyundai Motor Vehicle Ulsan Factory and directed the attack against the factory employees and police officers. Defendant G repeatedly committed each of the crimes of this case even though the above Defendant had been punished several times due to the crime of interference with business. Defendant B, as the chief director of the AW branch site, committed each of the crimes of this case. Defendant AW branch, as the vice head of the AW branch dispute, had been punished due to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. Defendant C, as the vice head of the AW branch, has repeatedly committed each of the crimes of this case, was under the direction of Defendant G at the time of committing the crimes of this case, and was under the direction of Defendant G to attack his employees and police officers, and was under the direction of the victim of each of the special crimes of this case; Defendant G’s motive and circumstances before and age 20.

2. In addition to the various circumstances mentioned above, the remaining defendants deposited KRW 2 million for the Republic of Korea (Ulsandong Police Station) in relation to the crimes committed by the Defendants in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the crime of interference with business for which the first head judgment of the judgment of the Defendants in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act becomes final and conclusive, in addition to the frequency of the crimes by the Defendants, degree of participation, punishment records, special obstruction of performance of official duties in this case, injury resulting from joint performance of official duties in this case, and injury to the victims of the crimes in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury). AW Branch deposited KRW 1-B in the judgment of the court below and KRW 2 million in relation to the crimes committed by the Defendants in accordance with Article 1, S, AJ and AP, taking into account the following factors: the Defendants’ age and character, motive and circumstance of the crimes, motive and circumstance before and after the

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

On April 13, 2012, from around 07:42 to around 07:57 of the same day, the Defendant created relief with approximately 40-50 members, such as AWD Assembly members BP, in front of the main text of the Ulsan Factory, and G called “on the site.” The Defendant attempted to enter the factory by using the passage door where the stoba and bicycles enter the factory, and carried out 20 minutes of the 20-minutes of the security guards preventing them.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with approximately 40-50 members of the AW branch and interfered with the duty of controlling access of the security guards belonging to the victim modern automobiles by force.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant consistently stated that he/she moved from the investigative agency to four factories to work at around April 13, 2012, and that he/she does not seem to be the Defendant’s appearance even at the scene of illegal act, there is no evidence that it is difficult to believe that each of the above evidence is good and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the charges.

3. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged is judged not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jae-jin

Judge Sung-sung