The crime of interference with business is established in cases where a person interferes with business by deceptive means or force.

Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 314(1) of the same Act). The term “power” means any force capable of suppressing or mixing a person’s free will.

The strike as an industrial action that obstructs the normal operation of business by refusing to provide labor for the purpose of accomplishing the claim is a practical exercise that prevents the employee from providing labor under a labor contract, and thus collectively suspends the employee's assertion by imposing pressure on the employer. Thus, the elements constituting force as referred to in the crime of interference with business include the elements of force as referred to in the crime of interference with business.

However, under Article 37(2) of the Constitution, workers may be limited on the grounds of public interest, such as national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare, and the exercise of their rights should be justified, and is not absolute rights, but in principle, they have the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions as fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

(Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that a strike as an industrial action does not always constitute the crime of interference with business, and it is reasonable to deem that the crime of interference with business is established only when the refusal to provide collective labor constitutes force and constitutes the crime of interference with business only when it can be deemed that the refusal to provide collective labor constitutes force only when it can be deemed that the refusal to provide collective labor constitutes the crime of interference with business because the failure of the employer’s prediction was made at a time unforeseeable by the employer

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do482 Decided March 17, 2011). The lower court comprehensively based on the adopted evidence, recognized facts as indicated in its holding, and subsequently, found the strike on July 2, 2008 of this case.