However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive for the defendant 2, 3, and 4.

1. Status of the Defendants

Defendants were workers of a two-wheeled vehicle company, and Defendant 1 was the head of the chapter of the two-wheeled vehicle branch of metal labor union (hereinafter referred to as “labor union”), Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 was the members of the union, and Defendant 4 was the representatives of the union.

2. Progress of restructuring of two motor vehicles;

The two vehicles suffered from chronic financial deficiencies from the beginning of the year 2008, due to the decline in sales due to pay-in and economic crisis, loss in derivatives trading, and the weakening of competitiveness due to the failure of research and development investment since the early 2000s, etc., and the first cash of 7.4 billion won is merely 7.4 billion won, and thus, the first cash of 2009, which became due on January 9, 2009, led to an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court on January 9, 2009. The Seoul Central District Court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures with respect to both vehicles on February 6, 2009, appointed Non-Indicted 18 and 19 as the legal manager, and expressed that “The organization and profitability of the two vehicles can be accurately checked from new Dos to reflect their objective efficiency and profitability, and implement the guidance of rehabilitation throughout the entire process of restructuring.”

Accordingly, on April 8, 2009, a pair of automobiles were prepared and announced a self-rescue plan to the 2,646 workers who reached 7,177% of the total amount of 37% of the total amount of 2,50 billion won, including new development investment funds. Nonindicted 12, an inspector, submitted a self-rescue plan to the effect that "the continuous corporate value of a pair of automobiles as of the commencement date of rehabilitation procedures is 1.327.57 billion won, and the liquidation value is 938.95 billion won, which is 38.84 billion won or more than the liquidation value, but the continuous corporate value is 2,646 equivalent to 7,177.37% of the total amount of 2,50 billion won, which is 2,50 billion won or more, and thus, it cannot be determined that there is no possibility of a new rehabilitation inspection under the premise of the Seoul District Court."

In accordance with the above self-rescue plan, on April 16, 2009, both automobiles received a desired retirement application from workers, and around May 8, 2009, submitted a written report of dismissal plan to dismiss 2,405 persons, taking into comprehensive account the disciplinary action, continuous service, evaluation, probation, number of dependants, etc. on June 8, 2009, and subsequently, they were to implement restructuring through several times, such as voluntary retirement, separation, etc.

3. Illegality of a strike;

(a) Illegalness of strike;

In order for a trade union to be lawful, the subject of collective bargaining shall be the one who can be the subject of collective bargaining, and the second purpose shall be to create autonomous negotiations between the labor and the management to improve working conditions, and third, the employer shall commence collective bargaining to the specific demand for the improvement of the working conditions of the workers, but shall undergo the procedure of the union members' direct, secret, and anonymous voting and the procedure of the application for mediation of the trade dispute, unless there are special circumstances, and fourth, the means and method shall be in harmony with the employer's property rights and shall not constitute violence as well as the exercise of violence. Industrial action shall not be conducted in such a way as to interfere with entry, operation, or other normal business of the person who is not related to the industrial action or the person who intends to provide labor, and shall not use violence or intimidation as an act of resisting or acquiring the participation in industrial action.

In the process of corporate rehabilitation procedures, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission held a two-party meeting on April 3, 2009 when it requested workers to guarantee the total employment of workers. On April 9, 2009, it decided to convene a general assembly meeting for the purpose of "labor bargaining and crushing of layoffs" for the purpose of "labor bargaining and crushing of layoffs". On April 13, 2009 and April 14, 2009, it decided to hold a 5,025 of incumbent union members, 4,328 (84.02%), and decided to hold a 20-party meeting for the purpose of producing 5,151 of the 5,000 members, 5,000,0000 members of the Seoul Central District Court, and decided to hold a 20-party 2,000-party 2,0000 members of the company, including the 20-party 2,000-party 2,000.

In the process, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission applied for mediation of a labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission on April 10, 2009, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered an administrative guidance on April 20, 2009 that the issue of restructuring is not subject to a labor dispute but recommended that the labor dispute should be actively and faithfully negotiated between labor and management. As a result, the National Labor Relations Commission applied for mediation of a labor dispute again on April 23, 2009, on the ground that it is impossible to present a mediation proposal due to a significant difference between labor and management claims on May 4, 2009.

Ultimately, the series of strike in the Trade Union is for the purpose of preventing the company from promoting its restructuring and constitutes an illegal strike for the purpose of this case. The partial strike up to May 3, 2009, which was before the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to suspend its mediation, constitutes an illegal strike in violation of the principle of mediation prior to the suspension of mediation, and thus constitutes an illegal strike in the course of procedure. In particular, it is an illegal strike in which the right to manage the company's facilities is completely excluded from the right to manage the company's facilities by comprehensively taking out the production facilities in violent way after May 26, 2009.

(b) Power of strike;

On April 9, 2009, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Division consists of 34 members including the head of a chapter, the head of a site, the head of a bureau, the secretary general, the head of an office 7, and the head of a division 23 members. On April 9, 2009, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Coordination Division made a resolution to publicly announce the convocation of a general meeting for vote against and against an industrial action through a temporary conference on April 3, 2009, 34 members of the above execution department, 7 members of the Chang-si Factory Branch, 7 members of the Chang-si Branch Branch and the representatives of the Chang-si Branch Branch, 1 members of the Central Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Central Dispute Mediation Committee) in which 45 members of the Subdivision and 45 members of the representatives respectively participate in the decision of the Trade Union and the Central Dispute Mediation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Dispute Resolution"), and led the above series of strike by executing the strike plan.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. by Defendants 2, 3, and 4 (Noncompliance with the eviction of a group, deadly weapon, etc.);

As above, since May 26, 2009, two motor vehicles moved in full of Pyeongtaek-si factory, they reported a lock-out to the competent authority on May 31, 2009 and publicly announced the lock-out, and requested all persons in Pyeongtaek-si factory to leave the factory by notifying the lock-out in relation to the union, but the union continued to occupy a full scale of the union, but both motor vehicles notified on June 20, 2009 that they will remove Pyeongtaek-si factory occupancy in the union and move out of the factory.

Nevertheless, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 continued to occupy a full factory site from May 22, 2009 to August 6, 2009; Defendant 3, from May 25, 2009 to July 26, 2009, did not comply with the demand for the removal of the victim’s two vehicles by force from May 31, 2009 to August 6, 2009, with the 90 occupied farmers, including Defendant 1, etc., of the Trade Union and its branch commander, and with the aforementioned container, etc. in Pyeongtaek-si factory.

2. Interference with the affairs of the defendant 2, 3, and 4;

As above, from May 22, 2009 to August 6, 2009, Defendant 3, along with Defendant 1, etc. from May 25, 2009 to July 26, 2009, occupied 90 households, including Defendant 1, etc. in total with the victim’s two vehicles, thereby obstructing the management of the factory facilities of the two vehicles by force in collusion with the above occupied farmers by force.

3. Violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act by the Defendants

After the fact that approximately 3,00 executives and employees wishing to engage in normal operation at P.M. on June 26, 2009 enter a Pyeongtaek factory and secure the atmosphere of exportation from the main office and its subordinate officers and employees on June 27, 2009, there was an atmosphere that large-scale violent incidents occur between the occupied farmers and the above officers and employees, and that the government's input of public power for eliminating the power wave has been imminent, Defendant 1 and the strike-led power force, including Defendant 1, plans to prepare more weapons than the pipe, chemical diseases, and V-emitting news equipped and used for the past, to respond to them with high strengths, and plans to prepare a large amount of weapons that can be emitted from a large amount of voltage and a large amount of voltages, etc.

On July 209, Defendant 1 ordered non-indicted 14 (the detention zone trial of August 31, 2009) to make a large-scale distribution in the office of the 3rd floor of Pyeongtaek Factory Welfare, and the above non-indicted 14 made 14 a large-scale size of the gas-generating machine or the total height of the remaining gas-generating machine with the maximum size of the gas-generating machine or the total height of the gas-generating machine, etc. used in 200cm with the maximum size of the gas-generating machine or the total height of the gas-generating machine, etc. used in 145cm with the power of the strike in front of the wheel storage.

As a result, the Defendants, in collusion with the above strike-driven power and the non-indicted 14, manufactured two string guns, which are made of materials other than metal or metal, and are likely to cause harm to human life and body by launching objects other than metal or metal, respectively.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2, 3, and 4;

1. A copy of each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 14 by the prosecution

【Violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. by Defendant】

1. All or part of each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. A copy of each protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 14 by the prosecution

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 14

1. A copy of the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 264 by the police

1. A copy of the statement made by the police against Nonindicted 265

1. A copy of the investigation report (the result of the test for the history of mass destruction);

1. Copy of the investigation report;

1. A copy of the actual survey report;

1. A report on investigation (related to distribution);

1. Video CDs;

Defendant 2, 3, and 4: Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (in response to the withdrawal of a group, deadly weapon, etc.) of the Criminal Act, Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act of each Criminal Act (involving business, interfering with business, selection of each sentence of imprisonment)

Defendants: Article 73 subparag. 1 and Article 11(1) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Manufacture of Man Firearms and Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2, 3, and 4: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of each crime)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4: Consideration of Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1448, Apr. 1, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 200Do126

A. The assertion

The defendants' defense counsel stated in the main sentence of Article 11(1) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (hereinafter "Guns Control Act") that "no one can manufacture, sell or possess anything that appears to be similar to guns and that is prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter "marbing guns")." Thus, the large distribution of the facts charged does not have any basic structure that must be equipped with guns, and thus, it cannot be seen as similar to guns. Thus, the defendants asserted that it does not constitute a single gun under the Control of Firearms, etc. Act.

B. Determination

(1) Relevant provisions

Article 11 of the Control of Firearms, etc. Act (Prohibition of Manufacture, Sale, and Possession of Mono Guns) No person shall manufacture, sell, or possess those that look like a gun and are prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as "Mono Guns"). < Amended by Act No. 11211, Mar. 1, 201>

Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Control of Firearms, etc. Act (Standards for Imitation Guns) shall be deemed to fall under annexed Table 5-2.

[Attachment 5-2] Criteria for Mod Guns (Related to Article 13)

The guns which fall under any of the following subparagraphs shall be gathered guns:

1. Those made of metal or any material other than metal, which are highly likely to be misused for crimes in the same shape as that of a gun;

2. Those made of any material, other than metal or metal, which are feared to cause harm to human life and body because they fall under any of the following:

(a) Those the size of which is less than 5.7 millimeters in diameter (hereinafter referred to as "carbon exchange") from the launched objects;

(b) Goods, the weight of which exceeds 0.2g;

(c) Those the physical energy from a projected carbon exchange of which exceeds 0.02 kilograms;

(d) Those which are towing because the front part of the carbon return is not treated nesnes; and

(e) The one in which net explosion exceeds 90§¯s, or the one in which inflammable flames are inflammable.

(2) Whether the guns constitute a false gun

The requirement of Article 11 of the Control of Firearms, etc. Act is ambiguous and subjective. Since its meaning is ambiguous and subjective, it is embodied in Article 13 [Attachment Table 5-2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Control of Firearms, etc. Act. If certain articles meet the requirements prescribed in each subparagraph of the above attached Table, it shall be deemed to fall under a mother gun as "it seems to be similar to a gun" in Article 11 of the Control of Firearms, etc. Act. In particular, among the articles falling under subparagraph 2 of [Attachment Table 5-2] of the attached Table 5-2, the articles meeting the above requirements among launchinging objects, namely sound or flameing, are similar to a gun when they appear structurally (such interpretation is not so interpreted as if it goes against the legislative purpose and subject matter of discipline of the Control of Firearms, etc. Act, as argued by the defense counsel of the defendants.).

However, according to the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the "spawn" of the facts charged is the launching of objects or the noise and flame of objects, and thus, there is a concern for causing harm to human life and body, and thus, the above large guns constitutes a mother gun meeting the requirements of subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Control of Firearms, etc. Act (attached Table 5-2). Accordingly, the above assertion is rejected.

2. Whether Defendant 4’s crime was committed

Defendant 4 and his defense counsel asserted that they did not participate in the process of large-scale distribution since they transported large-scale captures completed and transported tools for large-scale distribution. However, according to the above evidence, the above argument is rejected.

Judges Odices