B. Violation of the State Public Officials Act

- A

2b

B

3 Ga

C

4 Ga

this Act

5 Ga

E

6b

F

7 Ga

G

8 Ga

CH

9.2

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendants engaged in collective action prohibited by the State Public Officials Act or the Local Public Officials Act for purposes other than official duties. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the meaning of “collective action for the purposes other than official duties” under the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Trade Unions (wholly amended by Act No. 10133, Mar. 17, 2010) or “justifiable activities related to labor unions” or “political activities” under the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials’ Unions.

2. The court below is just in holding that a person who does not have the status of a local public official as to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal may be punished as an accomplice pursuant to the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act because he/she processed the crime of a local public official punished pursuant to Article 82 of the Local Public Officials Act in violation of Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14409, Jun. 14, 2012). The court below held that Defendant D may be punished as an accomplice of other career-based public officials who violated the main sentence of Article 58 of the Local Public Officials Act, on the grounds as stated in its holding. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Park Young-young