퇴거불응등
All appeals by the Defendants and by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles) as to Defendant A’s refusal to leave the Defendant on March 4, 2016 among the facts charged in the instant case. As to Defendant A’s act as stated in this part of the facts charged is for the participation in the assembly held at the parking lot of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) located in theJ at the time of debate on March 4, 2016 (hereinafter “K”), it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, since it is a legitimate trade union activity.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, as to Defendant B’s refusal to leave on March 5, 2016, Defendant A’s refusal to leave on March 5, 2016, Defendant A’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against Defendant A, C, and D, and violation of the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc. against Defendants A, C, and D, K employed new workers to have them perform the duties of the workers participating in the dispute at the National Metal Trade Union, and let them substitute the duties of the existing workers. The Defendants’ act as described in this part of the facts charged is aimed at preventing the Defendants from performing the alternative work by illegal hiring of substitute workers. As such, the Defendants’ act as described in this part of the facts charged constitutes legitimate defense or legitimate act under the Criminal Act, and even if the Defendants did not unlawfully employ substitute workers, the Defendants caused the Defendants to perform the alternative work by illegally employing a substitute worker.
The misunderstanding constitutes a mistake on the premise of the grounds for the misunderstanding of illegality, and there was a justifiable reason for the misunderstanding.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of all the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality.
The sentence (Defendant A: fine of 2 million won, Defendant B, C, and D: each fine of 700,000 won) declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneased and unreasonable.
Defendant A’s refusal to withdraw on March 4, 2016, in determining the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles.