If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant is a person who was the representative of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Section (State) in building B from December 2, 2012 to December 16, 2015.

An employer shall not refuse or neglect the conclusion of a collective agreement and other collective bargaining with the representative of a trade union or with a person delegated by a trade union without any justifiable reason. However, the Defendant, on April 21, 2015, requested D Trade Union to conduct collective bargaining on or around April 21, 2015, and refused it without justifiable grounds despite the demand for public announcement of collective bargaining and wage bargaining on or around the 23th of the same month

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the statement on the fourth trial date);

1. Statement of police statement concerning E and F;

1. The complaint and reply;

1. A certificate of report on change in the establishment of a trade union, a collective agreement, a certificate of report on the establishment of a trade union, collective bargaining and demand for wage bargaining, delivery, certification of each case, notice on the result of processing each case, demand for implementation of decision on labor-oriented decisions, demand for supplement agreement, rules, collective bargaining and demand for wage bargaining, reply to a contract for service contract;

1. Application of the Investigation Report (No. 50) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 90 and subparagraph 3 of Article 81 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines against criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. On the one hand, the Supreme Court's recent ruling rendered that there was no dispute as to the existence of a legitimate trade union under the Trade Union Act at the time of this case, etc. on the confession of the reason for sentencing under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, and there is no record of crime, and that there is no dispute about the existence of a trade union under the Trade Union Act of the Korea Trade Union at the time of this case, and the defendant is obligated to accurately interpret and observe the labor relations law as an employer who is a party to collective bargaining, and there is a gap between the court's final and objective interpretation of the norm and the interests