Name of crime: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint expulsion);

【Noncompliance】

2. B

3. C

Attorney E

1. “Act which does not contravene social norms” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act permissible in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether a certain act is a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms and thus, should be determined individually by considering the following specific circumstances: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) balance between the protected interests and the protected interests; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do2389, Apr. 25, 200; 201Do6287, Oct. 13, 2011).

In addition, in order to deem the activities of a trade union to be justifiable, it shall be deemed that the activities of a trade union can be seen as the activities of a trade union or that the implied authorization or approval of a trade union is necessary for the maintenance of working conditions and the enhancement of workers' economic status. It shall be an act that contributes to the strengthening of the unity of workers and necessary for the improvement of workers' work conditions. Except as otherwise provided in rules of employment, collective agreements, practices, and consent of the employer, the activities of a trade union within a place of business shall follow reasonable rules or restrictions based on the right to manage facilities, and shall not be done by means of violence and destruction (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do3044 delivered on April 10, 192, etc.).

Meanwhile, criminal facts must be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the cooking and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belongs to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) Defendant A and B, as an employee of the victim company, did not infringe on the essential part of the right to manage the victim company’s facilities, and engaged in public relations activities at the bus stops located in N regularly, and that the bus stops were made by the victim company in order to divide the incentives related to union operation into the victim company’s moving-out bus (hereinafter “the dormitory of this case”); and (b) the Defendants’ distribution of printed materials to some workers in the dormitory of this case could be evaluated as legitimate trade union activities by not infringing on the essential part of the right to manage the victim company’s facilities; and (c) the Defendants’ act of not infringing on the victim company’s interests as a whole for the purpose of public relations activities by giving notice of the establishment of the F-M-M-M-M-M-M-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S.

3. The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such fact-finding and determination by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value, which actually belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination cannot be deemed as having erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirement of a justifiable act as provided in Article 20 of the Criminal Act and the crime of non-compliance with withdrawal, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc.,

In addition, the above judgment of the court below that the defendants' act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms in light of its motive, purpose, means or method, protection interest, infringement interest, and circumstances, etc. can be seen as including the purport of recognizing urgency and supplement, which are the requirement of a justifiable act. In light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the above legal principles, the purport of the judgment of the court below is acceptable. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no omission of the judgment or there was no violation of law that affected

In addition, the Supreme Court's decision cited in the grounds of appeal differs from this case, and thus it is inappropriate to invoke this case.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Yong-deok in charge

Justices Go Young-young