In light of the fact that the labor-management council refers to the worker's participation in the business management, which is fundamentally responsible for the employer to hold a labor-management council, is consistent with the purport of the system under which the labor-management council is established, and that the former Act on the Promotion of Workers' Participation and Cooperation provides that employers who are not the representative of the convening authority shall be punished if a regular meeting is not held once every three months, it is reasonable to punish the employer unless a regular meeting is held. Since the meaning of "when the employer fails to comply with the provisions of Article 12 (1)" under Article 32 of the above Act cannot be interpreted as limited to the original judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of the above

2. Determination

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the purport and form of the former Act on the Promotion of Workers' Participation and Cooperation, the court below is justified to have determined that the defendant shall not be held responsible for non-convening of the labor-management council in light of the following circumstances: ① the meaning of "when the employer fails to comply with the provisions of Article 12 (1)" as stipulated in Article 32 of the above Act; ② the employer does not hold a labor-management council every three months even though the employer is in charge of the chairperson of the labor-management council; ② the employer does not perform his duty of minimum cooperation for holding the labor-management council; and ② the employer does not perform his duty of cooperation for holding the labor-management council.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Tae-gil (Presiding Judge)