1. According to the judgment of the court below and the records, the court below comprehensively reviewed the provisions of Articles 46, 42(1) and (3) of the Trade Union Act and Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act, where a worker is subject to dismissal, etc. without a justifiable reason from the employer, and in such a case, the Labor Relations Commission may issue a remedy order following the review procedures under Articles 40 through 44 of the Trade Union Act which are applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 27-3(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and the order shall have the effect of binding upon the party concerned pursuant to Article 46 of the Trade Union Act. Further, Article 46 of the Trade Union Act does not punish the defendant for a violation of the order of remedy upon the request for remedy against unfair labor practices under the same Act, but it is reasonable to interpret that the defendant is punished for a violation of Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 40 of the Labor Relations Commission Act and the order of remedy against the violation of Article 27-3(2) through 40 of the Labor Standards Act.

2. Article 27-3(2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that the provisions of Articles 40 through 44 of the Trade Union Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to an application for remedy, procedures for examination, etc. pursuant to paragraph (1) of the same Article, and Article 46 of the same Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to an order for remedy under Article 42 of the same Act or a violation of Article 43(4) of the same Act, which is a penal provision, to a case of violation of an order for remedy under Article 27-3(1) of the same Act, and there is no separate provision punishing a case of violation of

In addition, the contents of the penal provisions should be clear and it is not permitted to interpret them strictly and analogically (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do94 delivered on April 7, 1995). Thus, it is obvious that Article 46 of the Trade Union Act, which is the penal provision in the case of violation of Article 42 of the same Act, may not be interpreted as punishing a person who violates the order of remedy pursuant to Article 27-3(1) of the Labor Standards Act, or the order of remedy pursuant to Article 27-3(1) of the same Act, which is the penal provision in the case of violation of Article 43(4) of the same Act, even if the order of remedy, which is issued in relation to the application of remedy pursuant to Article 27-3(1) of the Labor Standards Act, has the effect

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the provision of Article 46 of the Trade Union Act is punished for a violation of an order for remedy issued under Article 27-3(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that it is reasonable to interpret that the provision of Article 46 of the Trade Union Act is punished for a violation of an order for remedy issued under Article 27-3(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and there

In addition, Article 46 of the Trade Union Act provides that "any violation of the order of remedy under Article 42 or any violation of the order of remedy under Article 42 has already been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (The Constitutional Court Order 92HunGa14 delivered on March 23, 1995)."

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)