업무방해
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of three million won, and a fine of four million won) is too uneased.
2. Unless the Defendants choose a legitimate method to protect the rights and interests of H members, and to strengthen the power of union resolution and the power of strike, as in the instant crime, interference with the business of the employer and other workers, such as the instant crime, is an act that is not suitable for our society, based on the rule of law, which is based on the rule of law.
Defendant
A has a record of being punished once by a fine due to the same crime, and Defendant B has a record of being punished once a suspended sentence and twice a fine due to the crime that interferes with the performance of duties and public duties.
The favorable circumstances show the attitude that the defendants recognized all the crimes of this case and reflected.
Unlike the ordinary trade union under the premise of the fixed workplace, the H trade union to which the Defendants belong has a special nature that the business owner has frequently changed as a unit of construction work, and thus, the exercise of the right to collective bargaining is not unreasonable. Therefore, there seems to be some reason to consider the circumstances leading to the crime of this case.
The sentencing criteria are not applicable to the case where the Defendants, including the above unfavorable circumstances, the age and character environment of the Defendants, the relationship to the victims, the motive means of crime (in particular, the form of interference with duties and the degree of the Defendants’ participation), and the circumstances after the crime, etc., have been selected as a fine as shown in the present arguments and the records of the lower court.
In full view of the foregoing, the lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendants deviates from the sentencing discretion.
It is not recognized that it is unfair because it is too unfluent enough to be assessed.
3. As the appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor of the conclusion is groundless, all appeals are made in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.