The forty-nine days of detention prior to the rendering of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On September 8, 2005, a trade union (hereinafter referred to as the “trade union”) started negotiations to conclude a collective agreement with the Korean Railroad Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Trade”) on behalf of the trade union, and demanded “building of public nature, such as opposition to the abolition of routes, such as strengthening of railroad restructuring and externalization, withdrawal of policies on railroad restructuring and externalization, human resources shortage to implement the five-day system in the previous five-day period, reinstatement of dismissals, non-regular dismissals, elimination of discrimination against non-regular workers, and preservation of public officials’ pension disadvantage,” and concluded negotiations over 40 times, but the private side is virtually unable to accept it on account of government policy or management right

On November 3 of the same year, the unilateral declaration of the bargaining conference was made on the 4th of the same month, and the occurrence of a labor dispute was notified on the part of the defendant's name on the 4th of the same month, and the occurrence of a labor dispute was notified on the 8th of the same month, and the organization of the union was converted into and operated with the defendant's presence in the presence of 122 persons among 136 representatives at the Korea Railroad Holdings and 136 representatives, and the resolution of the collective power strike was adopted from the 16th of the same month to the Korea Communications Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Dispute Subrogation"), and then the resolution of the collective power strike was passed from the 16th of the same month to the 18th of the same month, 23,006 members of the union, 17,447 members of the union, in collusion with the executive members of the trade union and members of the union;

On November 21, 21 of the same month, the issuance of No. 1 of the strike order in the name of the defendant, who is the chairman of the Central Dispute Subrogation, and the "from 09:00 on November 21, 11, the entire 122 branches shall hold temporary representatives meetings from November 22, 11, and enter the middle assembly and the daytime farming nature, and each regional headquarters subrogation shall be promoted to all the members of the Seoul, Busan, the Daejeon, the Daejeon, the World, the Netcheon, and the permanent residents by November 26 to November 28, 11, 200, by ordering the executives to establish a situation room and agricultural growth by means of subparagraph 1 of the Guidelines for Central Disaster Subrogation, and ordering them to establish a situation room and agricultural growth.

On the 30th day of the same month and through subparagraph 4 of the Central Dispute Subrogation Guidelines, following the instruction of “12.1. law-abiding strike, refusal of temporary trains, refusal of crew workers’ holiday work, wearing head belts, and head headlights,” etc. to open a strike;

On December 14 of the same year, through subparagraph 13 of the Guidelines for Central Dispute Subrogation 13, pressures on the side gradually by ordering “from December 16 to December 18, 12, to check temporary trains and refuse to conduct temporary inspection of electric vehicles in order to issue immediate orders, namely, vehicle guards, etc.”;

on the 26th day of the same month, through subparagraph 15 of the Central Dispute Subrogation Guidelines, direct the preparation of a business survey report and a presentation for the purpose of calculating appropriate human resources for the operation of the train and establishing a mid- to long-term human resources operation plan by the Railroad Corporation;

Through Rule 18 of Central Dispute Subrogation Guidelines on January 3, 2006, the basic preparation is underway in preparation for strike by ordering “Preparation of an emergency contact network for all union members and purchase of goods, such as backing,” etc.;

On July 2 of the same year, the Central Dispute Subrogation confirmed on March 1 (2) 01:00 of the date of general strike, and established agricultural growth in each regional headquarters and branch from February 09:00 through subparagraph 23 of the Central Dispute Subrogation Guidelines;

On the 14th of the same month, the Democratic Labor-Management Office in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government calls for “Unilateral non-regular employment legislation,” such as railroad, i.e., the suspension of such legislation, and the elimination of ex officio arbitration,” and calls for a strike if the requirements are not accepted;

On the 18th of the same month, the Seoul University took part in “the total resolution of transportation solidarity” held by 6,00 members of the labor union, and spreads the atmosphere of the labor union. On the 18th of the same month, the Seoul University issued an order of the strike in the name of the Defendant on the 22th day, “All members of the labor union are going to go to the agricultural growth by entering in the circular steel farming and the circulatory steel farming for each field from February 22, and from February 23 to February 28, 200, the members of the labor union need to attend the field of the labor union and hold the general appearance in the district and district strike from February 28, 200.”

On the 27th day of the same month, via Article 36,37 of the Central Dispute Subrogation Guidelines, “A non-member shall participate in the general strikeoutoutout of five nationwide regions until February 28, 21:00, and a person scheduled to work shall be bound to enter the general strike and to refuse to receive and sign the “Emergency Convocation Order” of the Railroad Construction in accordance with the Union Members’ Action Guidelines if the order of strike is issued on March 1, 200;

On February 28 of the same year, through Article 39 of the Central Dispute Subrogation Guidelines, all members of the Union gradually implement the procedures to take part in the strike, such as ordering “where the head or manager of the Union gives a warning of illegal strike following an ex officio arbitration by having individual interviews with members and executives, all members of the Union shall refuse to hold an individual interview by the manager”;

On the 28th 21:00 of the same month, the final negotiation with the private survey team was held, while the number of union officers and union members and union members and 12,800 members were present, and the total strike was declared, in five national hubs, such as Seoul (6,601 persons, Efin Office), Daejeon (1,191 persons, Vehicle Management Body), Daejeon (2,657 persons, Vehicle Management Body), Busan (2,657), Permanent Residence (2,657) (1,97 persons, Permanent Sports, 390 persons, 390 persons and union members were present, and the total strike was declared;

According to such a collective strike declaration, Non-Indicted. 1 of the National Labor Relations Commission decided to refer a labor dispute to arbitration on March 1, 1990 by the chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 75 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and thus, in the case of railroad construction which is an essential public business, the act of dispute by March 15, 200 during the arbitration period is prohibited;

The Trade Union and Labor Relations Management Division, including the Defendant, spread to the Union members through No. 3 of the Order of Ma1:00 Central Dispute Subrogation 01:00 on March 1 of the same year so that “All members of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Division shall enter the 01:00 on March 1, 1, 200 into the General Power of the Trade Union with the preceding members, and shall not be harsh to all members of the Trade Union and Labor Relations, and shall maintain the general strike o

In addition, through the Central Dispute Subrogation Order No. 4 of March 2 of the same year, when facing judicial process, such as the issuance of a warrant of arrest of the main agent, due to the declaration of the government's strong response policy and subsequent measures accordingly, the member instructs that "All members shall continue the strike and secure the second hub and continue the strike";

From 01:00 to 14:00 of the same month, 13,808 members of the Korea Railroad Corporation (the president of the Korea Railroad Corporation) caused property damage equivalent to about 13.5 billion won in total for 4 days, including loss of operating income and compensation for substitute personnel, by means of having them stop operating 329 times in the nation 641, including the Seoul rolling stock maintenance shop, without going to work at the 01 business places, and thereby interfere with the transportation of passengers and freight of the Korea Railroad Corporation (the president of the Korea Railroad Corporation) by force.

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. A copy of each protocol of interrogation of the police as to Nonindicted 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 13 and 14

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 13, 14, and 15

1. Police seizure records;

1. Investigation report (data on the decision to refer to arbitration in a labor dispute), emergency order to return to arbitration (final, final, final), notification of the decision to refer a case to arbitration, guidance to select an arbitration commissioner, advance notice of the decision to refer a case to arbitration, full-time documentary evidence and photographs, reports on pending issues in each labor or management, guidelines for strike 1 through 54;

However, even if an employee who entered into an employment contract with the employer did not provide labor in violation of his/her own contract, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a crime of interference with business, apart from the fact that the employee is liable for nonperformance of the employment contract. However, if multiple workers refuse to provide labor by collectively leaving the workplace or absent from work under mutual communication, thereby impairing the normal operation of business, such as production, sale, etc. of the employer, unless the act is justified as a legitimate industrial action under the labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, it constitutes a crime of interference with business, unless the act is justified as a legitimate industrial action under the labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2771, Apr. 23, 191).

In addition, an industrial action is already satisfying the requirements of "compact and number of persons, which are the conceptual elements of force in terms of collective action, and it has the nature of suppressing free will in that it is a practical exercise of force that imposes pressure, and most of the cases involve force, and it cannot be said that the refusal to provide labor under mutual communication with many workers cannot be the same in terms of the degree or risk of the ability of the individual workers. Therefore, it is deemed that the collective refusal to provide labor constitutes an element of the crime of interference with business by treating the collective refusal to provide labor under mutual communication with each other, as a form of force of the act, which is the element of the crime of interference with business, and thus, it is not punishable as an omission of the refusal to provide collective labor (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 97Hun-Ba23, Jul. 16, 1998). The above argument purporting to this effect is not acceptable.

In addition, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the ex officio arbitration system is unconstitutional, and there are significant defects in the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission to refer to arbitration in this case.

Article 62 subparag. 3 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and Article 63 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provide that the legislative purpose is to maintain the daily lives of the public and preserve the national economy by allowing the resolution of disputes through arbitration of the Labor Relations Commission in lieu of agreement between the labor and management to resolve disputes in lieu of agreement between the labor and management, and the method of restricting fundamental rights provided for in the Act is appropriate, and the degree of restriction on fundamental rights is also appropriate, and the balance between the public interest to be protected and the private interest to be restricted is maintained, so it does not violate the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1863, Dec. 26, 2003; 201Hun-Ga31, May 15, 2003, etc.).

On the other hand, according to the documents submitted by the defendant and the defense counsel on the background of the decision to refer the case to arbitration, when collective bargaining with the Korea Railroad Workers' Union and the Korea Railroad Corporation has been interrupted, the labor union has conducted mediation by the special mediation committee organized by the National Labor Relations Commission upon filing an application for mediation of the labor dispute with the National Labor Relations Commission on November 10, 2005. However, on November 25, 2005, the National Labor Relations Commission recommended conditional referral to arbitration under the condition that "the mediation is terminated without presenting the mediation proposal because it is judged that the mediation proposal would be inappropriate due to a significant difference between the parties to the labor union," and the National Labor Relations Commission would suspend referral to arbitration by December 26, 2006 pursuant to the agreement that the labor union would not take industrial action, but again, by giving notice that the labor union would not return to arbitration by not later than the end of January 26, 2006, but by giving notice that the labor union would not directly refer to arbitration in the manner of postponement and voluntary bargaining.

In order to complete mediation without submitting a proposal for mediation and submit it to an ex officio arbitration, there is no evidence to deem that it is unlawful and invalid in the course of the procedure to suspend the referral to arbitration without immediately conducting the referral to arbitration in order to guarantee the autonomous bargaining of labor and management. The industrial action from March 1, 2006 to March 4 of the same year was conducted within 15 days from the date of referral to arbitration by the National Labor Relations Commission, and thus, it is in violation of the provisions of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and thus, the argument for a legitimate act is rejected.

Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the fact that an industrial action is conducted by a peaceful means during a relatively short period of time)

Judges Lee Jae-tae