B. Whether a labor dispute subject to arbitration by the Arbitration Commission includes both an interest dispute and a right dispute (affirmative)

(c) Whether the act of interference with business by occupying offices of those who are engaged in an industrial action, the act of violation of trust due to the free boarding and operating of vehicles, and the act of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. due to the damage to property is illegal (affirmative); and

(d) Responsibility for an accomplice who does not participate in the conduct;

B. In the definition of labor disputes under Article 2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, the term “claim between the parties to labor relations as to the terms and conditions of labor” includes any assertion about the individual labor relations and any of the collective labor relations, which includes both the assertion of the rights under collective agreements or labor contracts (rights disputes) and the assertion for the formation of new agreements on them. Accordingly, the subject matter of arbitration by the Arbitration Commission includes both an interest dispute and a right dispute.

C. The exercise of the right to collective action by workers is an act of violence or destruction, which goes beyond the bounds of the legitimacy of industrial action, and thus, is an act of interference with business due to the occupation and use of the office of the members of the subway Corporation and the Workers' Union, the act of interference with business due to the occupation and use of the office of the members of the subway Corporation and the driver's union, the act of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. due to the free-board operation and the act

D. The conspiracy, which is the subjective requirement of the co-principal, is sufficient when there is a combination of the intent to jointly commit the crime among the accomplices, and all the accomplices establish the co-offenders' relationship even if they are formed by the combination of their intent by not gathering at the same time, at the same place, in order and impliedly, without gathering, and even if they were not involved in the conduct, even if they were not involved in the conduct.

All appeals by Defendant 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are dismissed.

(1) Article 30 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act provides that the Labor Relations Commission shall conduct arbitration, and Article 31 of the same Act provides that an industrial action cannot be conducted for 15 days from the date when a labor dispute is referred to arbitration. Thus, each of the above provisions does not constitute a provision that infringes on the essential contents of the workers' right to collective action, such as a theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Do357 delivered on May 15, 1990 and 90 seconds52 delivered on May 25, 1990). The argument is groundless.

In addition, in the definition of labor disputes under Article 2 of the Act on the Mediation of Labor Disputes, the term "claim between the parties to labor relations with respect to the working conditions" includes the assertion on the individual labor relations and any of the collective labor relations. It is the transfer of party members cited above that it includes not only the assertion of the rights under collective agreements or labor contracts (rights disputes) but also the formation of new agreements on them.

Unlike the above opinion, the legal theory is based on the so-called "interest dispute" and the so-called "rights dispute" as in this case is not included, and it is not acceptable as it is the ground for asserting that the decision to refer to arbitration of this case is invalid as it is unlawful.

(2) The exercise of workers' right to collective action is not punishable by the illegality under the Criminal Act only when it is legitimate, and in any case violence or destruction cannot be interpreted as a justifiable act. At the time of the original judgment, the Defendants' obstruction of duty due to the subway Corporation's office occupation, violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violence, etc. due to Property Destruction and Damage, etc., which goes beyond the limits of the legitimacy of industrial action and does not constitute an unlawful act. According to the timely evidence of the first instance judgment as cited by the court below, the court below's decision that found the Defendants guilty is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, or incomplete deliberation. The arguments are without merit.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal:

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found Defendant 2 not guilty on the grounds that there was no participation or conspiracy in the conduct of public prosecution against the above Defendant 2, and that there was a change in the funeral ceremony of the head of Feb. 28, 1989 (2.29.) and there was no other evidence to prove the facts charged, and that Defendant 3 violated the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act with respect to Defendant 3, the above Defendant did not participate in the conduct of public prosecution or participate in the meeting of the union members who decided to do so, and he did not attend the meeting of the union members, at the time of the fact that the union members was preparing materials in the Yongsan-dong office in order to prepare a change in the job form that the union members would present to the subway Corporation, and the statement in the court of the court of the court below's judgment in the witness, Nonindicted 1, and Kim J-hwan also supported the above change of position, and there was no evidence to prove the facts charged.

(2) First of all, considering Defendant 2’s obstruction of business, the act of interference with business of this case took place on February 28, 1989: around 11:00, at the front of the main office of the subway Corporation, with 1,700 members collected from the front of the main office of the subway Corporation, and Nonindicted 1 of the Labor Relations Commission Chairperson at the Assembly of Association Members Governing Unful of Agreement by 1,700 members, continued to occupy each branch office from February 28 to March 4, 200, and opened a subway Corporation and controlled outside people’s access by opening a bar rink at the end of each office from 0th to 1:0,000, the employees were forced to leave the main office of the subway Corporation, and the employees were forced to leave the office of the above Corporation until March 3, 1989, and the head of the Labor Relations Association failed to follow the direction of the above Corporation at the end of 1:3rd 28th 20,000 members' office.

(3) Next, considering the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against Defendant 3, the act of causing the property damage of this case was carried out on March 12, 194 in accordance with the detailed action plan that was held from March 21, 1989 to 24:00 on the same day at the expanded plenary session, which was held from March 21, 1989 to 24:00 on March 12:00 at the second end of the construction site, and the second part of the non-indicted 1's order that the above defendant et al. would take place the so-called campaign for cleaning, and it is evident that the above defendant et al.'s et al.'s et al. led the union members to take the lead of the union members to take the floor of the building of the main part of the construction site as well as the union members, and it is evident that the defendant et al.'s act of causing the damage to the office and the wall of office 400,000 won.

The conspiracy, which is the subjective requirement of the co-principal, is sufficient if there is a combination of the intent to jointly commit the crime between the accomplices, and the relationship is established even if all the accomplices do not gather at the same time, at the same place, in the order and impliedly, and the combination of their intent is formed. Since such conspiracy has been achieved, even if they did not participate in the execution, they are criminal liability for the other accomplices' acts.

According to the records, the subway labor union business of this case was conducted on February 3, 1989 after Non-Indicted 1 won was elected as the chairman of the labor union, and the implementation of a letter of agreement, and the withdrawal of the president of Non-Indicted 2, which was decided through discussions at the labor union meetings including the Defendants in the presence of Non-Indicted 1, and Defendant 3 can be seen as active support of the subway labor union business of this case as the chief of the labor union, and even if the above defendant was a staff member of the labor union of the above union during the farming period or the dispute period, he did not take part in the above activities of the labor union members and did not take part in the activities of the labor union members and did not take part in the activities of the labor union members and did not take part in the activities of the labor union members. Accordingly, even if the above defendant did not take part in the activities of the labor union members, he did not take part in the activities of the labor union members and did not take part in the activities of the above 40th of the labor union members.

(4) As seen above, the court below found Defendant 2 not guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against Defendant 3 is a judgment which contains an error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the co-principal. Therefore, there is a ground to reverse the part not guilty of the judgment below, and there is a reason to reverse the part of the judgment of the court below, but there is a substantial relation between the crime and the crime of concurrent principal. Thus, the court below's judgment against the above Defendants cannot be reversed in its entirety.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 and 3 is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining defendants' appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)