[2] The standards for determining the legitimacy of the entire industrial action where there are many purposes pursuing the industrial action, and some of them are not justified

[3] The case holding that the industrial action by the union members of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology cannot be justified in its principal purpose

[4] The case holding that the crime of interference with business and damage caused by an illegal strike shall be punished as substantive concurrent crimes

[2] In a case where there are many other purposes pursuing an industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose of the industrial action. If it is recognized that the industrial action would not have been conducted if the industrial action had not been conducted for the reason of the unfair demand, the entire industrial action shall be deemed to have no legitimacy.

[3] The case holding that the legitimacy of the main purpose of industrial action cannot be recognized on the ground that the main purpose of industrial action by the union members of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology was to restrain the privatization of the facility sector of KAIST

[4] The case holding that the crime of interference with business and damage caused by illegal strike shall be punished as substantive concurrent crimes

1. Regarding the principal purpose of the Defendants’ industrial action

Unless there are special circumstances, such as reorganization dismissal, division, and consolidation of organizations, which belong to a high-level managerial decision by a management body, cannot be a subject of collective bargaining, in principle, and the labor union's act of industrial action to substantially oppose the implementation of the act of industrial action without urgent managerial needs or reasonable grounds, the act of industrial action cannot be justified even if the status or working conditions of workers are inevitably changed due to the implementation of the act of industrial action. On the other hand, in a case where there are many purposes pursuing the act of industrial action and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the purpose of industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose, and where it is deemed that the act of industrial action would not have been conducted if it had been conducted until the expiration of the illegal requirements, the act of industrial action has no legitimacy (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do5380, Feb. 26, 2002, etc.).

Examining the records of the judgment below in light of the records, the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology") under the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Trade (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology") established from March 200 to September of the same year did not complete conclusion despite the fact that the government imposed collective agreements on the employer and collective bargaining for wage negotiations with the expiry of the term of validity of the collective agreement, and conducted collective bargaining for wage negotiations. However, since the government's implementation plan for management innovation such as government-funded organizations started from October 2, 1999, it cannot be seen that there were no reasonable reasons to conclude the plan for privatization and entrustment of facilities of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology") by the end of 200, and that there were no specific reasons to inform the Defendants of the plan for industrial action, such as the implementation of privatization of the plan for industrial action at least by the government-funded research institutes of the present case.

Therefore, the court below's determination that the purpose of each industrial action of this case by the defendants against the plan for privatization of the facility sector of KAIST itself is just and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds of appeal, or the mistake of facts as to the main purpose of industrial action, or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the legitimacy of industrial action, as

2. As to Defendant 1’s public invitation

Examining the evidence of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just to recognize that Defendant 1 conspired with the remaining Defendants and the executive officers of the KAIST branch in relation to the criminal facts of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as the suspension of heating supply of a building and the damage of various facilities and equipment and the return of the office inside the building while interfering with the work of non-labor union members by taking advantage of the fact that Defendant 1 conspired with the other Defendants and the executive officers of the KAIST branch, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law such as misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to joint principal offense, etc., as alleged in the grounds of appeal. This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. As to the number of crimes between the crime of interference with business and damage caused by illegal strike

The defendants' assertion that the crime of obstructing KAIST's business by force by allowing union members to take care of the full-time strike from December 13, 200 to January 31, 2001 and the crime of damaging various equipment by stopping heating supply from December 13, 200 to January 19, 201 is in the relation of comprehensive crime of obstruction of business or ordinary concurrent crimes. Thus, the defendants' assertion that the defendants did not dispute the appellate court's appeal after the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief was asserted only in the supplementary appellate brief, so it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. The judgment of the court below and the first instance court did not accept all kinds of facilities and equipment due to suspension of heating supply from November 222, 200 to January 19, 201, and it cannot be viewed as a concurrent crime of obstruction of business from December 13, 200 to January 19, 200.

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

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)