2014Gohap9 (A) Business obstruction

(b) Damage to property;

(c) Information violating Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization

Infringement, etc. of Communication Network)

1. (a). (c) A

2. (a) B

3.(a)(b) C

4. (a)(b) D

5. (a)(b)(c) E

Na Chang-soo (prosecutions), Choi Chang-hee, Cho Young-hee, literature, Song-gu, and Shin Ho-woo (each public trial)

Law Firm F, Attorney G in charge (for all the defendants)

May 27, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and shall be punished by a fine of five hundred thousand won, including Defendant B, C, D, and E.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of the 100,000 won was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants’ interference with business and the Defendants A and E’s violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (information and communications network infringement, etc.) shall

Criminal facts

On February 13, 2012, the Defendants and H, I, J, and K have removed the banner of the L Union Culture Broadcasting Headquarters (hereinafter referred to as the "MBC") attached to the entrance door and the street pole by the employees in charge of the security of the victimized company at the first floor of the headquarters headquarters of the victimized company (hereinafter referred to as the " victimized company"), and the members, including the Defendant A, set up the letters on the banner in the entrance door board and the street pole as they would turn back to the front door board and the street pole. On the same day, the members, including the Defendant A, will turn back to the front door board of the entrance board "WC was removed", and the "the president" was laid off on the front seat of the street board "WC was removed."

As a result, the Defendants, in collusion with H, I, J, and K, damaged the utility of the entrance door board and the studio of the victimized company.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness M;

1. Indicating some of the statements made by the prosecution against the defendant A concerning the suspect interrogation protocol (one time);

1. Written statement by prosecution;

1. Each photograph (No. 3,56 No. 56);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 366 and 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

The utility of the 1st floor door board or street pole of the victimized company does not interfere with the utility of the studio or street pole, on the ground that the writing is written on the studio or street pole. Even if the utility has been impaired, such an act falls under the category of legitimate expression of opinion during the strike period, and thus is not illegal.

2. Determination

A. The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or where the utility thereof is harmed by other means. The term "conscising the utility of property" refers to making the property in a state where it is virtually or emotionally impossible to provide it for its original purpose, and includes making the property in a state where it cannot be used temporarily. In particular, whether the act of falling under the act of falling under the wall of a structure constitutes an act of harming the utility of the structure, such as the use and function of the structure in question, the impact of the act on lighting, ventilation, view, etc. of the structure in question, degree of undermining the aesthetic view of the structure in question, inconvenience or resistance that the building users feel, difficulty and difficulty of restoration, expenses incurred therefrom, purpose and continuity of the act, and circumstances at the time of the act, etc. shall be determined according to social norms by taking into account various circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007).

B. Based on these legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by this Court with respect to this case, i.e., ① “I will return to the people’s goods” in the front board, ② “I will am collapseed by MaBC” in the front board, and “I am,” “I am,” in the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the front board of the last day of the last day of the last day of the last day of the back of the original term of the front.

C. Furthermore, in light of the contents and consequences of the crime of causing property damage as seen earlier, even if considering the circumstance that the damaged company removed placards, etc. set up by the Defendants during the strike period, and used letters to substitute them, such act does not seem to have considerable means or legal benefits, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a justifiable act.

D. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

The motive and background of the crime of this case, the degree of infringement of the utility of the signboard of this case and the log pole of this case, and the period thereof, the defendant A, C, and D did not have any record of punishment heavier than the fine. The defendant B and E did not have any record of punishment, and the extent of the defendants' participation in the crime of this case, the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendants are determined as per the disposition in consideration of the degree of punishment as shown in the records.

Parts of innocence

1. Determination as to the obstruction of business by the strike against the Defendants

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant A is MBC N, Defendant C is the above labor union P, Defendant C is the above labor union P, Defendant D is the above labor union Q, Defendant B is the above labor union P, Defendant B is the above labor union P, Defendant B is the above labor union P, H is the above labor union P, the above labor union P, the above labor union P, the above labor union P, the above labor union P, the J is the above labor union P, the above labor union P, the above labor union P, and the above labor union P, and the above labor union V

The term "labor dispute" refers to a dispute situation arising out of disagreements between a trade union and an employer or employers' association with respect to the determination of working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment. In order to be a trade union's industrial action, it is premised on disagreements with an employer with respect to the determination of working conditions, and it is not possible to conduct industrial action without going through the procedure of adjustment of the Labor Relations Commission prescribed by the Act or for the purpose of the employer's personnel and management rights or the issue of individual decision-making.

Accordingly, Defendant A has overall control over the strike as MBC labor union N, and Defendant C has overall control over the strike business as Chapter 0, and Defendant A has overall control over the strike business practice as Chapter 0, Defendant D has been in charge of public relations activities such as the production of a special strike report as a Phead, Defendant D takes charge of the establishment and implementation of a strike program as a Qhead, and in charge of inducing union members by being in charge of an intra-company strike assembly and event. Defendant B has encouraged the participation of union members in the strike as a Vice-Chairperson, and also has the role of planning intra-company strike assembly and event, and has the role of encouraging H, I, J, U, and K to participate in the strike as the members of the relevant sector as S, T, U, and V Vice-Chairperson.

On January 3, 2012, along with H, I, J, and K, the Defendants asserted that the executive biased news report after the W president’s appointment was a fundamental cause for the decline in the news viewing rate, and that the Defendants passed a resolution on the issuance of a special weather report under the name of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee for the Number of Public Broadcasting MBCs, with the content that “the head of the news reporting headquarters, X, the Director-General, Y, Z of the political department, AA of the editing 1, and AB for the normalization of the MBC as a public broadcast, is required to change the assignment of the position.” The Defendants distributed a special weather report under the name of the Director-General of the news report headquarters, Y, the head of the political department, the head of the social department, and the head of the social department 2, and from January 25, 2012 to January 27, 2012.

After that, on January 30, 2012, 06: 00 : 00 'W president' shall be decided to enter into a general strike with the purpose of 'WW president', 'request for chain personnel for fair reporting', and 'MBC Headquarters' shall go into a general strike for the normalization of public broadcasting MBC from January 30, 201 to October 30. All members of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Branch shall be affiliated with the first floor democracy of the Broadcasting Center from January 30 to October 30, 2012. All members shall cease all the duties and act in accordance with the non-Subrogation guidelines. Domestic business trips and vacations shall return to the company, and the members shall return to the company, and the members shall be recommended to participate in the business and shall be recommended to participate in the business in the special guidelines of the members of the Broadcasting Center from January 30, 201 to December 30, 2012.

Accordingly, on January 30, 2012: 06: From 00 to 00, 573 members of the MBC union at the headquarters of the victimized company located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, refuse to provide collective labor, such as leaving the office or failing to perform the duties necessary for each of the prescribed broadcasts, in accordance with the General Radio Waves Guidelines; on January 30, 2012, 10: 00 to 10:0, MBC sets up the entrance door from the first floor of the MBC office; 'BC W of the regime' installed a large banner; 'BC W of the regime’ installed a large banner; held a general appearance in court attendance; on January 30, 2012, 2012: holding a meeting at around 00 for each sector; holding a meeting; holding a meeting; and holding a meeting at around 00.

1. 30. 15: At around 00, he participated in the strike by holding a strike assembly.

In addition, from January 30, 201 to July 17, 2012, the Defendants, along with H, I, J, and K, were allowed to participate in the strike (hereinafter “the strike of this case”) by holding a similar assembly as shown in the list of crimes in attached Table 1 from January 30, 2012, or by inducing 70 members to participate in the strike through severe weather alerts, etc. on a daily average of 700 members, by collectively refusing to produce a broadcast, participating in assemblies such as a strike resolution, and by developing a publicity for supporting the strike of the union.

As a result, in collusion with H, I, J, and K, the Defendants broadcast 10 regular news reports programs, including 14 programs, such as 'news', 'Neng', 'Neng', 'Neng', 'Neng 2580', and 'PD pocket book', which led to a 986 broadcast type, which caused a total of 24 programs to cause a 986 broadcast type, and thereby interfere with the production, programming, and transmission of broadcasts by the victimized company by force, by causing damage of the total amount of KRW 54.74 billion, 333 billion due to the reduction of advertising revenue, the production of alternative human resources, and the production of alternative programs.

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, the following facts are recognized. (1) The issue was raised in the news reporting case, such as delaying the news reports or intentionally reducing the amount and contents of news reports compared to the competition media companies, from August 2010 to August 2010 after the appointment of the W representative director, which is the representative news reporting program of the victimized company.

However, around that time, ‘New News Report' was actually made on July 2, 201, after the relevant contents were broadcasted on June 29, 2010, about 10 days later than other media companies with respect to the suspicions of illegal civilian inspection by the Prime Minister office, and on July 2, 2010, the report was made for the first time on July 2, 2010. ② No report was made at all differently from other broadcasting companies with respect to the suspicions raised by the Minister candidate hearing conducted from May 23 to 26, 2011. ③ With respect to the suspicion that the KBS reporter recommended the meeting of the highest committee of AD, it was later than this frame than the SBS, a competitive broadcasting company.

27. The first report was made [the first report was made on the grounds that the second head of the society of the victimized company's society is sensitive to the relevant news, and the reporter's opposition to the reporter's press such as questioning the director general of the press on the background of the report, etc.] (4) around November 26, 2011, the Seoul High Court sentenced the damage company to the first report as Seoul High Court's decision 201Da21950 Decided November 25, 201, on the ground that the damaged company distorted the purport of the Supreme Court's decision, the second report was made immediately after the Seoul High Court's decision on the "PD pocket book", and the above report was made in favor of the reporter's company 201Da231419 decided November 26, 201.

(B) personnel measures for the production company of the PD pocket book

“PDbook”, on April 29, 2008, broadcasted a program with the subject of Mad Cow Disease related to the resumption of the import of U.S. beef. The Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries filed a lawsuit against the victimized company for a corrective statement or a counterargument report on a part of the broadcast content. In addition, as to PDs (E, AF et al.) in charge of the production of the above program, a public prosecution was instituted with the content that damaged AG reputation, which was the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries at the time, but the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment of innocence on December 2, 2010, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 2, 2011. However, the victimized company was immediately after the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court as above.

20. Although the above PD was subject to suspension from office or reduction of salary on the ground of impairing the reputation of the company, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced on December 7, 2012 that the above disciplinary action was invalidated by Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Gahap24280 (Seoul High Court appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na753, but dismissed on January 10, 2014).

On the other hand, PD, who worked in the production team of the PDbook, tried to broadcast the program dealing with the problems of the so-called ‘fourthd Project', which was promoted at the time as the title ‘confidentially secret' and ‘six meters in depth' on August 17, 2010. The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs asserted the program as false on the part of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and applied for provisional injunction against broadcasting as Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap625, but was decided to dismiss the above provisional injunction on the day of broadcasting. The management, such as WW president, requested the exhibition company (written copies) and, upon refusal of the demand, the victimized company stayed the broadcast through the board of directors regardless of the opposition to the responsible PD and the Director-General for culture at the time, [the program was broadcasted on August 24, 2010, which was postponed on September 20, 2010, as to the legitimacy of the above broadcast measure.

27.The Fair Broadcasting Consultative Council (a collective agreement between the victimized company and MBC labor unions consisting of the equal number of labor and management councils established to deal with matters concerning broadcasting for the realization of fair broadcasting) was held.

However, on March 3, 2011, AI, who was appointed as the Director General of the Culture Bureau in charge of the production of the PDbook, was excessively biased as shown in the PDbook production program, and the program viewing rate has lowered, and accordingly, the PD will be replaced for more than one year in principle. The PD was announced in the announcement of personnel measures. At the time, PD was reflected against the Director General of the AI's current culture office, and the AI (the head of the AD broadcasting team), which was together with the Director General of the SDR's PDbook, issued labor movement letter and political letter. It is necessary to detect the political letter of the PD pocketbook, and in the case of AH, there was no longer political color, but more than one year before the PD book production, and the Director General of the PD's final direction for production of the PD pocketbook, such as "the head of the PD's work team prior to the compilation of the PD book," and ordered the above personnel measures.

The director general of the AI current culture bureau and the head of the AK PD PD pocketbook team have been confused with PD in connection with the selection of the subjects after his/her absence, and there is no new content or there is no viewing rate.

On the grounds of this, the Korea Heavy Industries Labor-Management Decentralization or AL Prosecutor General rejected the production of a program, the subjects of which are the suspicions related to candidates, and the suspicions related to the selection of the seven major natural landscape in Jeju-do. On August 23, 2011, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was scheduled to broadcast on August 23, 201, instructed a person in charge of production to delete and broadcast the appearing parts of AM market among the contents of the program on Han Riverine Development Project, which was planned to broadcast. In addition, around July 15, 2011, AK was discovered and was found to have followed the books of the persons in charge of production, and was also subject to paragraph of PD.

On the other hand, according to the personnel measures of the Director General of the AI's current culture bureau, NN and AP moved into a manufacturing team of each "PD" among March 12, 201. However, NN tried to produce a program for the suspension of inter-Korean economic cooperation and the damage of the enterprises related to economic cooperation from the suspension of inter-Korean economic cooperation on May 24, 2011. However, AI ordered the suspension of production on the ground that viewing rate is low, and as a result, it is difficult to recognize the necessity of the suspension of production as a result of the collective agreement on May 12, 2011, the AP and the AP, the representative of the "AO Council composed of NN and current culture countries," transferred NN to the GD regional headquarters, and it is difficult to recognize the necessity of the suspension of production as a result of a violation of the collective agreement on the grounds of the suspension of work by the Seoul Southern District Court 2011.

15. Even after the acceptance of a provisional disposition, N has been transferred to Japan under the pretext of planning the work in 2012, but the office or auxiliary personnel to be in charge of the relevant work have not been fully prepared in Japan. NN had been excluded from the production of the “PD pocket book” until October 201, and returned to the head office in Japan.

Al served as the Director General of the Culture Bureau on November 201, 201, and during 2011, the viewing rate of “PDbook” was lowered rather than 2010 years. Meanwhile, separately from the aforesaid conflicts within the production department, AI demanded a Fair Broadcasting Council on June 24, 2011 with respect to “MBC Span social” portion, which was already produced on the broadcast of June 24, 2011, only one copy of “Is the private equity,” which had already been completed on June 20, 201, to which the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s free meal program for free school meals for the reason that there may occur unfair market costs, solely on the ground that the residents’ voting on June 20, 2011 might occur.

C) On March 25, 2011, Q, including the replacement of contributions at the radio headquarters and labor-management conflict, was appointed as the chief of the radio headquarters of the victimized company. The MBC labor union has opposed to the appointment of the chief of the radio headquarters to criticize A Q as a representative influence that damages A Q from wrong planning and interference.

A Q took part in the reorganization of radio programs immediately after the assumption of office, and the radio headquarters was replaced by a large number of performers or contributors on the grounds of a drop in listening rate or involvement in political activities. In addition, around July 2011, the injured company established a regulation on fixed contribution restriction to limit the fixed contribution of contributors who openly express specific opinions on social issues, and around that time, the “AU’s concentration of the city of AU” was trying to change AV as its contributor, and the AV was actively engaged in political activities at the time of the appointment of the PV, and rejected the contribution on July 15, 201, by taking into account the following reasons: (a) on September 17, 2011, the PW of the “2 Simt” program was replaced by AX, which was the progress of the PW, but the production of AW and the production of the PW did not explicitly change the PW’s intent to withdraw from the PW.

Accordingly, PD belonging to the radio headquarters conducted a demonstration in front of the bureau room, posted a warning bulletin, etc. to criticize the president and the AP director at the office, and by using nights, “There is a last judgment on the executive officers’ books.” In addition, MBC labor union made criticism that the management of the victimized company is forced to replace the progress as part of the so-called so-called ‘the so-called ‘the so-called ‘the so-called ‘the so-called ‘the so-called ‘the so-called â‘ the ‘the so-called ‘the so-called ‘the party management' was urged to hold the Fair Broadcasting Council on the replacement of AR performers on May 6, 201 and on May 2, 2011, but was held on May 18, 2011 (the date of May 18, 201).

In the Gu, the victim company rejected the order of suspension of the production of the ‘PD pocket book' on the ground of some employees'. Meanwhile, the radio chief of the victim company was replaced from AY around November 201 to AY, which was held on November 3, 2011, by the Fair Broadcasting Council held on October 26, 201, that there was an unfair news report behavior in the process of the "re-special election" of October 26, 201, and that there was an unfair news report behavior in accordance with Article 10 of the Operational Rules of the Fair Broadcasting Council, and that there was a demand to change the assignment of the executive officers related to the above election report, such as the X news chief and the Y news chief, and that there was a difference between the opinions on fairness and the president of W was pointed out that there was a difference in the opinion on fairness, but the latter did not demand the change of the assignment of the executive officers related to the above election report.

B) In relation to the opposing demonstration of the Korea-U.S. FTA, on November 23, 201, the injured company dispatched a train and reporter during the assembly site, but only reported the news event on the following day, without reporting it. On the following day, there was a controversy over the infringement of human rights by the police as to the use of a physical distribution, but the police did not report it. However, due to the attitude of the victimized company’s report, there was an event of refusing to gather the materials of the reporters belonging to the victimized company. A Z, a reporter belonging to two copies of video coverage of the reported company, at the time, was a victim company’s video coverage, on November 11, 201, and June 26.

The title "MBC reporters, who drive away on the bulletin board of the intra-company homepage on the day after the Korean-U.S. Free Trade Agreement," is called "the participants of the assembly refuse to gather news against MBC reporters on the ground of biased broadcasting, and damage broadcasting equipment. It is impossible for companies to gather news, thereby gathering news near a small 6m radius. The report director posted a letter to the purport that ", although the report director posted a letter to the purport that it is, the head of the BA video coverage, who is a direct superior, deleted the above article by himself.

C) MBC labor union requested the affected company to hold a regular meeting or extraordinary meeting on November 30, 201, and on the grounds of unfair reports related to the Korea-U.S. FTA, and notified the victimized company that it would hold a meeting under the presence of the vice president, and requested the W president to attend the meeting on December 13, 2011, and the victimized company refused to comply with the request. In addition, on the grounds of 2011, the victimized company did not hold a regular meeting of the Fair Broadcasting Council under the Operation Rules of the Fair Broadcasting Council once a month. However, the MBC labor union demanded that the MBC union hold a regular meeting or extraordinary meeting on 14 occasions in total during the year 2011, but the date 15 or 10 days after the request was made only on 14 March 21, 2011, and the date 13 or 10 days after the request was made on 14 March 21, 2011.

The request for the holding of the Fair Broadcasting Council shall not be made on the ground of non-Confidence voting by the Director of the Press Report Headquarters of the MBC Council.

D) MBC labor union is subject to 'Special Countermeasure Committee' on December 19, 201 through 'Special Countermeasure Committee' on December 19, 2011, WW President 2011.

11. 3. As above, in the future, if unfair news reports are repeated, it was called that one would demand his retirement, and then that one would not take any measure despite the occurrence of the issue of unfair news reports related to the Korea-U.S. FTA, the WW president voluntarily argued that he would dismiss him. Nevertheless, the MBC union would not give any reply from the side of the victimized company, but rather go through the 'the Severe Weather Alerts of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee' on January 3, 2012, and would go into the front part of the news and production program unless there is any reply.

E) At the time, “New News Agency” was a competitor’s news program more than that of the competitor’s news program, and the management of the victimized company presented “New News Improvement Plan” as the basis for the change of broadcasting hours. However, on January 5, 2012, the Press Association, composed of reporters belonging to the victimized company, proposed that human data reform should be followed, and issued a non-Confidence vote demanding the resignation of the director general of X news report and Y news report bureau. As a result of voting, 108 members among 125 members (8% of 86.4%) and approved this non-Confidence proposal. Accordingly, on January 6, 2012, the MBC reporter’s association refused to comply with the request of the director general of the Personal Re-Confidence Headquarters to improve the news content from the date of his/her resignation, and 100 members to 10% of the total voting during the 20th of the 19th of the 20th of the 19th of the 20th of the 3th of the 20th of the voting.

f) Defendant A, the chairperson of the MBC labor union, opened a 20-day emergency news countermeasure committee on January 9, 2012, 2012, announced that MBC would be faced with an exceptional high-speed news strike that is not flexible, long-term and long-term, and that the president of the WBC would be faced with the last 1st floor of the victimized company. The president was free from the position of 10-day or MBC. The president opened a 10-day emergency news countermeasure committee for the 1st century and opened a 20-day emergency news countermeasure for the 10-day emergency news countermeasure for the 1st century and announced that the 10-day emergency news countermeasure for the 2nd anniversary of the 10-day emergency news countermeasure for the 1st century. The president announced that the 10-day emergency news countermeasure for the 2nd of the 10-day 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st election campaign.

On January 11, 2012, the MBC reporters' association demanded voluntary withdrawal from the news report director and the director general of the news report bureau and the withdrawal of the disciplinary committee for BB and BC, and if such demand is not accepted, the 17th day of the same month was announced that they will carry out a vote for refusal of production, and the MBC video reporters' association will also carry out a behavior with the MBC reporters' association on January 11, 2012.

H) On January 10, 2012, the PD Internet newspaper reported that the MBC labor union continued to vote for a total strike after the establishment of the WW president for a fair broadcast. On January 11, 2012, the Internet newspaper of the Korea Press Association reported that the MBC labor union participated in the strike that the WBC labor union retired from the W president.

I) The MBC reporters’ conference and the MBC video reporters’ conference held pro-con voting from January 18, 2012 to 19. As a result of voting, 115 out of 137 reporters’ conference and 30 out of 45 video reporters’ conference were subjected to rejection of production from January 25, 2012. As a result, the broadcasting hours of the 'New News assets’ were drastically reduced from 50 minutes to 15 minutes, from 90 minutes to 10 minutes. In the case of another news program (0: 30 news, 16:0 news, 6:0 news, 6:0 news, 6:0 news, etc.), the broadcasting hours of the 'New News Assets’ were reduced to 50 minutes to 10 minutes.

j) MBC Workers' Seoul Branch held 7th January 25, 2012 to 27th 2012 (from January 19, 2012, for absentee voting), 783 members (83.4%) participate in this voting, and 533 members (69.4%) agree to this strike. At the time, MBC labor union's announcement of pro-con voting was the most important reason for 1st 7th mbC's opposition to WBC's above as public broadcasting, and that WBC's announcement of its own will be the most reliable role of professor's government-related public opinion poll, and that WBC's announcement was the most reliable role of professor's government-related public opinion poll for the last 2010. It was consistent with the WBC's announcement of the public opinion poll's announcement of the reason for e.g., "the president's announcement of the latest e., e., the WD government-related public opinion.

(k) According to the above pro-con voting, MBC labor union Seoul Branch notified industrial action on the occurrence of industrial action on January 30, 2012, 1, and 27, and started the strike in this case from January 30, 2012, 06:00, and the purpose of the strike was to issue "No. 1 of the total strike guidelines", which is claimed as "a general strike strike for the normalization of public broadcasting MBC." to the union members.

3) After the completion of the instant strike, MBC union’s head office “MBCW will return to the peoples of MBC”. “MBC collapses.” “PC shuts down “PC’s removal from WW president and the number of public broadcasts”, “PP sets off the first floor, closed the first floor, write down the same phrases on the first floor stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud stud.”

In addition, the 10th floor of the headquarters of the victimized company with the president's office and the vice president's office, the 9th floor in the management support office, the 5th floor in the news report office, and the 5th floor in the news report office, etc. require a group meeting to hold out relief and to hold a meeting of reporters, meetings, performances, etc. to the outside of the company, and distribute printed materials to the citizens to inform the citizens of the legitimacy of the strike.In addition, it represents the opinions of the labor union by producing programs such as the 'news', 'PD book', 'PD book', and 'PD book', and distributing them through the Internet.

Workers taking part in the strike of this case shall gradually increase before and after the first 600 people, and shall be 2012.

6.8. 8. A maximum of 785 members were maintained and 760 members were maintained until the end of the strike. In addition, the major assignment officers of the MBCA Seoul Branch, including the Defendants, led or actively participated in various assemblies and demonstrations held during the strike.

B) On the other hand, W did not work in the company suffered from the instant strike for about three weeks after the commencement of the instant strike, and MBC labor union found WBC president in order to require WW president to hold an interview and to publicize the position of MBC labor union. It also distributed the leaflets, such as “,” etc.

C) On May 16, 2012, the injured company closed 5th and 10th floor reporting stations and 22th and 0th and same day: (a) completed the news reporting process by 50 members of the press conference on May 16, 201; and (b) prevented them from leaving the government office by blocking and leaving the government office. The injured company was unable to make the news media due to the acts of 2G from leaving the government office through 20th and following the news reporting process. The injured company did not receive some of the claims for damages other than the 20th and 20th and the Seoul District Court did not receive some of the claims for damages other than the 20th and 19th and the Seoul District Court did not receive 30th and the 20th and the 2nd and 2nd and the 2nd and 5th of the news report.

D) On the other hand, on February 14, 2012, the injured company filed an application for provisional injunction against obstruction of business with the Seoul Central District Court on the part of its members, including MBC union and Defendants. The Seoul Southern District Court partially accepted the application of the victimized company on June 13, 2012 by the MBC union and the Defendants, and notified the victimized company’s employees, including the Defendants, of the provisional injunction against obstruction of business operations. The Seoul Southern District Court, upon the transfer of the above case, notified the victimized company of the temporary injunction against the Defendants, including the following: ① taking part of the victimized company’s place of business or the building located in the workplace or the building located in the damaged company; ② taking part of the damaged company’s place of business or the building located in the workplace or the building located inside the affected company; ② taking part of the damaged company’s place of business; ② taking part of the victimized company’s place of business or the building located inside the workplace or the building located inside the workplace; and made a decision prohibiting the Defendants from entering the damaged company or its employees.

As of June 15, 2012, MBC labor union Seoul Branch suspended cushioning of executive officers within the head office, and converted the method of strike into a strike by holding a meeting in front of the sentiments or south of the head office of the victimized company, conducting a joint signature campaign. One person’s demonstration continued until July 17, 2012, and the executive staff cushion was resumed from June 19, 2012 before his/her literature and south literature, and was resumed from June 19, 2012.

have continued to do so.

E) During the period of the strike, some artistic programs such as ‘PD pocket book', 'PD pocket book 2580' and 'New News Agency', 'New News Agency', 'New News Agency 50, 15: 50, 18: 00, 24:00) news by each hour, and 'Korean marriage', and 'DMama' program were associated or reduced, and 'Dma' program was replaced by some participants of the PD' radio programs for one week in the month (from March 7, 2012 to August of the same month). In addition, the part of the participants of the Ama program were replaced by some participants of the Ama program.

On March 28, 2012, the injured company selected five poppy poppy under the jurisdiction of the news reporting station. On April 17, 2012, a public announcement was made for the recruitment of contract workers for broadcast production personnel, such as career reporters and news progress PD. On May 12, 2012, a public announcement was made to employ a career reporter as a full-time worker after one year starting (for trial) more than two years. On June 13, 2012, a public announcement was made for the recruitment of a career worker, such as re- planning, public relations, and reporters, and public announcement was made on June 13, 2012. The substitute worker employed by the victimized company during the strike period became 93 persons in total.

F) On July 17, 2012, MBC labor union Seoul Branch declared the temporary suspension of the instant strike, ordered its members to return to work 09:00 copies on the following day, and accordingly, the instant strike was terminated.

4) On the premise that the instant strike is an illegal strike, the victimized company filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on March 5, 2012 against the Seoul Southern District Court 2012Kahap3891. On January 23, 2014, the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a decision to dismiss the victimized company’s claim on January 23, 2014, and the appellate court was in progress as Seoul High Court 2014Na10931 as of March 5, 2012. Moreover, the victimized company dismissed the victimized company on the ground that it led Defendant A and Defendant C to illegal strike on April 3, 2012, on the ground that the instant strike was still in progress, and that the Seoul High Court’s dismissal was null and void on the ground that the Defendants’ dismissal was in violation of the order of suspension on duty, etc. on April 20, 2012, and on the premise that the Defendants’ dismissal was in violation of the order of suspension on duty, etc. on June 20, 2012.

C. Determination

1) Whether the strike in this case constitutes “power of force” is an industrial action under Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and a strike is an actual exercise of power to collectively suspend the provision of labor to the employer beyond simply refusing to provide labor services under a labor contract, and thereby pressure the employer beyond this, and thus, includes the elements constituting force in the crime of interference with business. However, inasmuch as an employee has, in principle, the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action for the improvement of working conditions as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 33(1) of the Constitution), and as a strike does not always constitute the crime of interference with business, it does not constitute the crime of interference with business at all times. In light of the previous and previous circumstances and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the collective refusal of labor provision constitutes a force only when it can be evaluated that an employer’s free will to continue the business may cause serious confusion or confusion in the operation of the business, etc. (Article 33(1) of the Constitution).

17. See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do482 Decided 17.

B) In this case, the issue of whether a strike as an industrial action constitutes a force under the crime of interference with business since it was conducted at a time when the employer could not predict, is based on the premise that an industrial action is core in collective action, which may interfere with the employer’s business, and that it would interfere with the business. In specific cases, the issue of whether an industrial action can be punished by the crime of interference with business should be determined by comprehensively considering the process of the dispute, and the protection area of workers’ right to collective action guaranteed under Article 33 of the Constitution should not be excessively

4. The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Hun-Ba168 Decided March 19, 19) held that the crime of interference with business was established on the premise that the former workers’ refusal to provide labor collectively interfere with normal operation of business and cause damage to the business, as a matter of course, based on all the circumstances, including the fact that the former workers changed their view that it constitutes force only in exceptional cases through the en banc Decision on March 17, 2011, it constitutes force. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the labor union could not be seen as exercising power within a specific period of time when the labor union could not be determined on the basis of the following circumstances: (a) whether the parties’ efforts and actions to resolve the dispute; (b) whether the labor union could have engaged in strike; and (c) whether the labor union could have sufficiently predicted the possibility of strike from an objective and reasonable point of view; and (d) whether the labor union could not have any predictability regarding the occurrence of strike and the period of interference with business, even if the labor union could have sufficiently conducted the strike within a certain period of time after the labor union’s resolution.

C) Based on these legal principles, the following circumstances were met: ① MB labor union 2 was continuously requesting resolution of 201, and the Fair Broadcasting Council was not opened several times; ② the 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2012nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 1st 2012nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 1st 2012nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 1st 202nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2012nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2016th 2nd 2nd 1st 2012.

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the refusal to provide collective labor due to the strike of this case was conducted at a time when the damaged company cannot be predicted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2) Whether the instant strike constitutes “justifiable industrial action”

As such, the refusal of collective labor provision due to the strike of this case does not constitute force in the crime of interference with business, and the strike of this case does not meet the elements of the crime of interference with business, and it is difficult to view the strike of this case as unlawful, taking into account the following facts

In order for workers' industrial action to be lawful, first, the subject should be the subject of collective bargaining; second, the purpose of the industrial action should be to create autonomous negotiations between labor and management to improve working conditions; third, the industrial action shall commence when the employer refuses to conduct collective bargaining with respect to the specific demand for the improvement of workers' working conditions; and third, barring any special circumstance, the industrial action should be in line with the employer's property rights; fourth, the means and method should not be included in the exercise of violence; and fourth, the industrial action must meet all the conditions that the means and method should not be in harmony with the employer's property rights; and all the conditions that the industrial action should not be included in the exercise of violence (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du10852, Apr. 29, 2005). Since it is apparent that MBCNo and Seoul Branch may be the subject of collective bargaining; therefore, the remaining requirements should be examined in order to determine whether the purpose of the industrial action in this case is legitimate.

If there are several purposes pursuing industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the propriety of the purpose of industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du12859, Jun. 23, 2009). Therefore, even if the industrial action aims at the demand of the representative director who belongs to the management right, it appears to have been asserted as a means necessary for the maintenance and improvement of working conditions, rather than directly aiming at the replacement of the representative director, if the industrial action is asserted as a means for the maintenance and improvement of working conditions, it cannot be deemed as the main or genuine purpose of the industrial action, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that such industrial action is unlawful as it lacks legitimacy of the purpose. However, in this case, since the purpose of industrial action presented through the speech of the executive officers of MBC branch, including MBC union and the defendant A, is considerably "WW president's retirement and fairness in broadcasting," the main purpose of the industrial action in this case is what it is.

According to the above facts and the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the injured company did not hold a regular meeting of the Fair Broadcasting Council in accordance with the collective agreement since 201 and did not comply with the request to hold a temporary meeting under the MBC labor union. ② The Fair Broadcasting Council held on November 3, 201, demanded the change of position pursuant to Article 10 of the Operation Rules of the Fair Broadcasting Council, which caused the occurrence of a subsequent similar situation in W to occur, the MBC labor union made a strong demand for his retirement and did not accept the change of position. ③ The dispute caused by unfair reports, etc., in the inside of the victimized company immediately thereafter, the dispute occurred, and further, on December 1, 2012, the first and the Video Broadcasting Council violated the news program improvement proposal of the victimized company, and carried out non-Confidence in the news report report report, and ④ the person who referred to the personnel committee to the MBC labor committee, which tried to start the issue of fairness and pressure of the victimized company.

In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that MBC labor union’s primary purpose of the strike in this case is not to exclude a specific operator of W, but to be guaranteed fairness in broadcasting, and that it is necessary to demand the withdrawal of W president who fails to comply with the agreement and fails to comply with the agreement even after promising to take measures to ensure fairness in broadcasting as a means to achieve that objective. Therefore, the main purpose of the strike in this case is to guarantee fairness in broadcasting, and on the premise that such purpose is the legitimate purpose of industrial action.

(2) Determination as to whether a demand to guarantee fairness in broadcasting constitutes a legitimate purpose of industrial action

(A) The purpose of industrial action and the scope of collective bargaining

Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act defines a labor dispute as "a state of dispute arising from disagreements between a trade union and an employer on the determination of working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment," and Article 2 subparag. 6 of the same Act defines industrial action as "act conducted with the aim of accomplishing the claim by the parties to labor relations, such as labor strike ..." In addition, in order for an industrial action to be recognized as legitimate, the purpose of the industrial action must be to form an autonomous negotiation between the labor and management for the purpose of improving working conditions. The purpose of the industrial action is to create an autonomous negotiation between the labor and management for the purpose of improving working conditions, the requirements to be achieved by the industrial action can be collective bargaining (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da4042, Sept. 30, 194; 9Do4893, Apr. 24, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles, the purpose of industrial action is to determine matters concerning the determination of working conditions or other labor relations affecting them by the parties to the labor-management relations by themselves, and, in principle, matters related to the parties to the labor-management relations. However, whether an industrial action constitutes collective bargaining is subject to collective bargaining should be determined in light of the purport of guaranteeing the workers’ collective bargaining rights under Article 33(1) of the Constitution and Article 29 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the industrial action constitutes a matter that can be disposed of by the employer as to the treatment of workers who are members or other matters concerning the management of such collective labor relations (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8906, Dec. 26, 2003). It does not necessarily mean that the maintenance and improvement of workers’ economic status such as wages, etc. are limited (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da34523, May 12, 192).

In particular, it is necessary to define the scope of matters subject to collective bargaining in consideration of the legal guarantee and regulation as to the purpose and status of the business in the case of a company operating a broadcasting business with high-level public nature, which may have a significant impact on the formation of public opinion by transmitting a broadcast with limited frequency band, unlike general private companies, such as a damaged company. (B) The provisions on broadcast deliberation enacted in accordance with the Broadcasting Act and the Foundation for Food and Drug Promotion Act have the same provisions as attached Table 3, and the contents of the collective agreement and the regulations on the operation of the Fair Broadcasting Council are as shown in attached Table 2.

Examining the key contents, the Broadcasting Act guarantees the freedom and independence of broadcast programming, prohibits all regulations or interference with broadcast programming that are not governed by the Act, and imposes an obligation to establish and publicly announce regulations on broadcast programming in order to guarantee the autonomy in the production of broadcast programming on a broadcasting business operator engaged in general programming (Article 4 subparag. 1, 2, and 4). The Broadcasting Act provides that reports by broadcast shall be fair and objective and shall protect and increase citizens’ right to know and expression (Article 6 subparag. 1 and 4). For this purpose, the Korea Communications Commission shall deliberate whether the contents of broadcast are maintained in the impartiality and public nature, whether public responsibilities are observed, and establish and publicly announce regulations for the deliberation thereof (Article 33). Accordingly, the Regulations on Broadcasting Deliberation enacted by the Korea Communications Commission provide for the fairness and objectivity of broadcast programming as the basis for deliberation in a case where a specific person or an interested party’s opinion may not be mistaken or conflicting with the Broadcasting Act’s regulations concerning broadcast programming, especially in a case where the Broadcasting Act provides for a specific person or an interested party’s opinion.

Meanwhile, the Foundation for Broadcast Culture established the Foundation for Broadcast Culture Act to realize the public responsibility of the broadcasting business entity, which is the largest investor, and contribute to the promotion of democratic, fair, and sound broadcast culture, and the improvement of public welfare. (Article 1) The Broadcasting Act permits the ownership of at least 40 percent of shares of the terrestrial broadcasting business entity in consideration of the public purpose of the Foundation for Broadcast Culture (Article 8(2) proviso 2).

In addition, the collective agreement of the victimized company also requires the establishment and operation of the Fair Broadcasting Consultative Council, which has the same effect as the bylaws, in order to guarantee the fairness and independence of broadcasting as seen earlier. In addition, the collective agreement of the victimized company provides various institutional devices to prevent the infringement of the fairness of broadcasting within the victimized company, such as policy-making meetings of the Director General of the Assignment Bureau or the opinion of employees, etc.

(C) As seen earlier, the Broadcasting Act, the Foundation for Broadcast Promotion Act, the Broadcast Deliberation Act, and the Regulations on Broadcast Deliberation impose an obligation on a broadcasting business entity to maintain objectivity and fairness in order to maintain and develop the fundamental democratic order, guarantee the freedom of expression and the right to know essential for maintaining and developing the fundamental democratic order, and to form a proper public opinion. To this end, the obligation to establish and publicly announce broadcast programming rules on a broadcasting business entity. In light of these legal regulations, the obligation to provide fair broadcast is the principle of establishing the basis of labor relations at the same time as the obligation required for both labor and management of the victimized company pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations, such as the Broadcasting Act, and as such, the preparation of an institutional device to realize the fairness of broadcasting and the preparation of compliance with it are not the matters entrusted to the autonomy of labor relations, but the employer is obligated to conduct collective bargaining pursuant to Article 30 of the Trade Union Act (the so-called mandatory negotiation subject matter).

However, the fairness of broadcasting as referred to in this context is not a mere fact that excludes any value judgment, but a broadcast based on objective and value-based facts by excluding voluntary programming based on subjective value judgment and collecting diverse values. However, the value itself is a subjective element and thus, depending on the viewpoint of the determination of which content is fair. As such, the fairness of broadcasting is bound to be determined depending on whether the broadcast was made through free presentation of the members and democratic participation in the process of producing and organizing the broadcast, rather than on the outcome of broadcasting. Therefore, if the existing rules of employment or collective agreement stipulate provisions to guarantee the above procedural fairness of broadcasting, if the employer intends to control the process of producing, editing and transmitting the broadcast by abusing personnel rights or management rights, it is not only an act that undermines working conditions in violation of collective agreements, but also constitutes an illegal act that violates the obligation of fair broadcasting as provided in the relevant provisions, such as the Broadcasting Act.

Furthermore, the act of demanding the observance of a pre-existing collective agreement constitutes an industrial action aimed at ensuring the effective implementation of the collective agreement, not merely claiming matters concerning the interpretation and application of the pre-existing collective agreement, but also seeking measures to ensure the effective implementation of the collective agreement. In cases where the legitimacy of the purpose of industrial action requiring the observance of the pre-existing collective agreement cannot be recognized as a so-called "decision on the working conditions" rather than a "decision on the working conditions", the act of industrial action aimed at restoring the working conditions undermining the failure to implement the pre-existing collective agreement would be prohibited under the Trade Union Act. This is not only an unreasonably restricting interpretation of Article 33(1) of the Constitution recognizing the right to collective action to improve the working conditions, but also a trade union has the so-called peace duty not to demand the amendment or repeal of the collective agreement during the effective period of the collective agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu733, Sept. 1, 1992).

In light of the above facts and the evidence adopted and examined by this court, management of the victimized company, including W, up to the day immediately before the strike of this case, intended to exclude various opinions of the members in the affected company within the affected company by violating the various procedural provisions of the collective agreement to ensure fairness in broadcasting and by abusing personnel rights, while trying to produce and compile only broadcasting that conforms to the management value and interests. Such an act is not only the aggravation of working conditions in violation of collective agreement, but also constitutes a violation of the duty of fair broadcasting recognized by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Broadcasting Act, and thus, an employee may take part in the industrial action to seek correction thereof.

① Whether a report on a specific news, the selection of a subject of a specific broadcast program, and the replacement of contributors, etc. are determined based on the professional judgment of a broadcast producer. It is difficult to readily conclude that the impartiality of a broadcast is infringed solely on the result of such determination. However, an employee or user of a victimized company may raise an issue with respect to such determination from the perspective of a broadcast producer. In such a case, the issue may be deemed to have been resolved reasonably in accordance with the procedures agreed by the parties concerned.

② However, the collective agreement of the victimized company has a procedural mechanism to resolve disputes related to the fairness of broadcasting through consultation between labor and management, such as the regulations on the operation of the Fair Broadcasting Council, and to realize a fair broadcast. The regulations on the operation of the Fair Broadcasting Council of the victimized company set up a number of labor and management councils and allow them to make a request for change of position only with the consent of a majority, and even in this case, it includes the fact that it does not violate the nature of personnel rights belonging to the management rights, such as recognizing the discretionary power that the president does not comply with the request for change of position. 3rd, the victimized company attempted to revise the matters concerning the right to demand change of position among the regulations of the Fair Broadcasting Council since the second half of the year 2010, and even though it did not meet the request for temporary meetings of the MBC labor-management council for the last time after November 3, 2011, it did not comply with the request for the prevention of recurrence of the labor-management agreement.

1.5. On the ground that the reporters' meeting and video reporters' meeting opened a non-Confidence voting for the head of the news report headquarters, etc., the reporters' meeting and the video reporters' meeting were assigned to or dismissed from a position and commenced a disciplinary procedure;

① In addition, prior to the commencement of the instant strike, the injured company replaced the production progress of certain programs, such as “PD pocket book,” on the ground that it is influence of the left-down without any objective grounds such as performance rating, and even though the Supreme Court rendered a verdict of innocence as to the defamation of the “PD pocket book” program, it was possible for the court to take a disciplinary measure such as suspension from office against the PD in charge of production, which became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court, but the court became final and conclusive. As a result of the selection of the subject of broadcasting, the company issued a transfer order to a department irrelevant to the previous work, which would cause conflicts between labor and management by abusing the right of personnel by returning it to the original position, etc.

(3) Accordingly, the strike of this case is justified in its purpose.

B) Whether the timing and procedure of the instant strike are legitimate

An industrial action shall commence when the employer has refused to conduct collective bargaining or responded to the intent of refusal in collective bargaining in relation to a specific demand for the improvement of working conditions, and the procedure shall be justifiable in accordance with the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, even if the industrial action violates the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Trade Union Act, etc., the legitimacy of the industrial action as an industrial action shall not be deemed to be lost, but it shall be determined whether the industrial action is justifiable by examining the specific circumstances, such as whether the act of violation brings about the same unreasonable result as the act of causing the stability of people's lives and the confusion or damages that may not arise in the management of the employer's business (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4006, May 14,

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted by this court, i.e., MBC labor union continuously demanded the Fair Broadcasting Council to hold a fair broadcast agreement in 201, but the victimized company did not comply with it properly. MBC labor union members demanded to guarantee fair broadcast from the time when the W president was appointed, and the victimized company unilaterally notified the termination of the existing collective agreement during negotiations with MBC labor union on January 14, 201, and even after the new collective agreement was concluded on October 17, 201, it was not expressed the intention to actively perform the duty to guarantee fair broadcast provided for in the Convention after the new collective agreement was concluded, it is reasonable to view that it is virtually unreasonable to require that MBC labor union members demand collective bargaining as an agenda for the period of fair broadcast operation on January 201, 201, immediately before the commencement of the instant strike with respect to the instant trade union members, which could not be seen as having been able to be able to refer to the Labor Relations Commission at the time of the commencement of the strike in question.

C) Whether the means and methods of the instant strike are reasonable

The method of industrial action shall be such as to fully or partially suspend the provision of labor to an employer, and it shall be in accordance with the principle of fairness in light of the principle of good faith in labor-management relations, and it shall not be in harmony with the ownership and other property rights of the employer's corporate facilities, and shall not involve violence or destruction (Supreme Court Decision 5.5. 192

8. Supreme Court Decisions 91Do3051, Mar. 25, 1994; 93Da30242, Mar. 25, 1994). However, even in this case, the legitimacy of the pertinent industrial action itself and the legitimacy of each act constituting or accompanying it should be distinguished. Thus, some minority workers committed an act of violence, etc.

Even if there is no illegality in industrial action as a whole (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8906, etc.).

However, according to the above facts, MBC labor union held a meeting on the first floor of the headquarters of the victimized company during the period of the strike in this case, and up to 10th floor by posting banners. In addition, some union members were deaf on the 5th floor or the 10th floor having the president's office in the news station, but such assembly or farming was replaced by a short period of time, but the transmission of the broadcast program did not interfere with the part of the victimized company's broadcast, but did not have any overall and exclusive use of the broadcast program to the extent that the transmission itself would be suspended. Furthermore, after receiving the court's provisional disposition, after observing the purport of the provisional disposition, there was no act of gathering from the outside of the headquarters of the victimized company's headquarters in the process of the strike in this case, and there was no act of causing violence or destruction in the process of the strike in this case, and there was no other act of causing damage to the headquarters of the headquarters in the wall or column in this case, and there was no way to see that part of the union members did not participate in the strike during the strike.

2. Determination as to the obstruction of business by the closure of entrance doors to the Defendants

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

After the Defendants conspiredd with H, I, J, and K to block the entrance door of the first floor of the headquarters of the victimized company, the Defendants mobilized its members on January 30, 2012, and obstructed the entrance by locking the entrance door of the first floor of the headquarters of the victimized company and laying a large banner in front of it.

On February 13, 2012, the Defendants and H, I, J, and K removed a large banner from the front of the entrance by the employees in charge of the security of the victimized company and opened the entrance. On the same day, the entrance was closed by means of cutting off the entrance door from the front of the entrance and laying off several door doors on the entrance glass.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with H, I, J, and K, and obstructed the broadcast service of the victimized company by blocking the entrance entrance of the first floor of the victimized company from January 30, 2012 to May 25, 2012.

B. Determination

1) The Defendants’ act of actively closing the entrance without simply refusing to provide collective labor constitutes force in the crime of interference with business. Moreover, the establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require the result of interference with business to actually occur, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). Even if the Defendants’ act did not result in direct interference with business, the Defendants’ act of blocking entrance satisfies the elements of the crime of interference with business.

2) Furthermore, we examine whether the Defendants’ act is illegal. Among industrial actions, a strike is conducted by staying in the workplace as an auxiliary means to ensure and strengthen the efficiency of suspension of labor, and is accompanied by a unit of work with a fluorous and fluorous workplace occupation, and it cannot be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da43800, Jul. 14, 1992, etc.). The occupation of workplace or workplace facilities is a form of active industrial action, and the scope of occupation is part of workplace or workplace facilities, and it is not only a bottled occupation that does not exclude the employer from the employer’s access or control (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5204, Dec. 28, 2007).

Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court regarding the instant case: ① the Defendants’ blocking the first floor entrance by locking the entrance door of the 1st floor and posting a large banner on the entrance glass as stated in the facts charged can be seen as occupying the entrance door; ② the Defendants’ blocking the first floor entrance outside the entrance door of the building with the passage of the 1st floor from the outside of the building, and the North door door used only for usual emergency during the strike period was opened. In light of the fact that the Defendants’ occupancy and use of the remaining parts are still under the possession and use of the damaged company, and thus, the Defendants’ use of the remaining parts cannot be seen as having interfered with the production or use of the 20th floor entrance of the affected company, and the Defendants’ use of the 20th floor entrance of the above 20th project, which did not interfere with the Defendants’ use of the 3rd project without any justification or control of access by the damaged company; ③ The Defendants’ use of the above 20th project entrance, which did not interfere with the above broadcast operation.

3. Determination as to the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection against Defendant A and E (information and communications network intrusion, etc.)

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

No person shall damage another person's information processed, stored, or transmitted through an information and communications network, or infringe, misappropriate, or divulge another person's confidential information.

On February 2, 2012, the Defendants acquired the use of the corporate card of the representative director of the victimized company, which was kept in the electronic accounting information system from a person with no name or name, and conspired to divulge it.

On February 27, 2012, at the first floor of the headquarters of the victimized company, Defendant A asked the company about the public information on the details of the use of W president’s corporate card, and there was no answer to the issue, so, Defendant E was made public through video. The amount of the corporate card used during the term of office for the last two years by the president of WW Culture Broadcasting (State) reaches KRW 700 million. First of all, the amount of the corporate card used in the name of the principal directly accompanied and used by WW himself exceeds KRW 200 million. The corporate card cost calculated by Non-Won due to formal parliamentary or gift values, etc. reaches KRW 50 million.

b. On..... .. . . The name store and high-class precious metal store, female clothing store, department store, liquid book, and living miscellaneous store have been written with the corporate card. The number of million won has been exceeded 1,000 won even in the purchase of domestic duty-free goods and aircraft, and in the Internet shopping mall, only one million won has been written in the Internet shopping mall. In the high-class beauty room and cosmetics store, the corporate card was used, and the weekend oil station fee was also calculated with the corporate card in the name of the principal. The use of the corporate card was constantly maintained and settled only on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The content of the “1,000 won has been published every day from the hotel and BI hotel, BJ hotel, BK hotel, BK hotel, Busan, Daegu, and 1,000 won, and the content of the “30,000 won has been used by the individual hotel from time to time to time in the name of the president.”

계속하여 피고인들은 2012. 2. 27. 경 총파업특보 ( 제22호 ) 에 위 기자회견문을 그대로 게재하였고, 2012. 2. 28. 경 총파업특보 ( 제23호 ) 에 ' W 사장 법인카드 사용내역 공개 ' 라는 제목 하에 " 2010년 5월 W은 BM에 있는 BH호텔 지하의 한 귀금속 매장에서 두 차례에 걸쳐 190만 원어치의 귀금속을 구매했다. 같은 해 8월엔 여의도 63빌딩 지하보석 상가에서 진주 목걸이를 샀다. 또 작년엔 63빌딩 지하 명품 가게에서 이태리 명품 브랜드 토즈와 구찌, 프라다 제품과 미국 브랜드 폴리 앤 코리나 제품 278만 원어치를 구입했다. 지난 2010년 8월, 백화점에서 화장품 브랜드 ' 아베다 ' 의 제품 34만 원치가 결제됐고 작년 7월엔 같은 브랜드 제품 41만 원어치가 또 결제됐다. 작년 1월엔 중년 여성이 주요 고객인 화장품 브랜드 엘리자베스 아덴 화장품 85만 원치도 법인카드로 사들였다. 재작년 추석 연휴 첫날인 2010년 9월 21일 낮, W은 인천의 한 특급 호텔에서 40만 6천 원을 결제했고, 그날 저녁에는 다른 호텔에서 19만 원을 썼다. 그리고 같은 날 오후 4시, W은 인천공항 안에 있는 이마트에 직접 들러 상품권을 200만 원어치 구입했다. W이 직접 갖고 다닌 법인카드 결제 내역을 분석한 결과 주말이나 공휴일에 사용한 경우가 전체 결제 건수의 41. 7 % 에 달했다. 이 가운데 식당 사용 내역은 휴일 결제 건수가 36 % 였고, 주유소 결제는 22번 가운데 20번이 휴일에 이뤄졌다. "는 취지의 내용을 게재하였고, 2012. 3. 3. 경 ' 제대로 뉴스데스크 4탄 : 숙박왕 W 스페셜 편 ' 이라는 제목으로 ' W 사장이 2011년 4월과 5월 일본의 마사지 업소에서 3번이나 법인카드를 사용했다 ' 는 내용의 동영상을 인터넷을 통하여 유포하였다 .

As a result, the Defendants conspired to disclose the use of the corporate card by the representative director of the victimized company who was kept in the electronic accounting information system of the victimized company.

B. Determination

1) Article 49 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. provides that “no person shall damage any other person’s information processed, stored, or transmitted through an information and communications network, or infringe, misappropriate, or divulge any other person’s confidential information.” Meanwhile, Article 71 Subparag. 11 provides that “a person who damages another person’s information or infringes, steals, or divulges another person’s confidential information in violation of Article 49” shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won.

The phrase "disclosure of secrets of other person processed, stored, or transmitted through an information and communications network" does not mean any act of divulgence of other person's secrets, but it is reasonable to interpret that a person who acquired another's secrets processed, seen, or transmitted through an information and communications network by unlawful means or methods, such as intrusion into the information and communications network, or a person who knows that such secrets have been acquired by the said methods is not yet known to other persons (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10576, Dec. 13, 2012). 2) Based on such legal principles, it is reasonable to interpret that it means only an act of informing other persons who have yet to know that the secrets have been acquired by the said methods (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10576, Dec. 13, 2012).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants’ interference with the business of the Defendants and the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (information and communications network infringement, etc.) against Defendants A and E constitutes a case where there is no proof of each crime or no crime, and thus, they are acquitted pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act (the prosecutor prosecuted the Defendants as concurrent offenders with the fact that the obstruction of business due to the Defendants’ collective refusal of labor provision and the obstruction of business due to the obstruction of entrance and exit, but each of the above obstruction of business continued to be committed under the single criminal intent during one strike, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that there exists a comprehensive crime relation, and therefore, it is reasonable to

jury verdict and sentencing opinion

1. A verdict of guilt or innocence;

A. The Defendants’ obstruction of business by strike

- - One person:

- Not guilty: Six persons;

B. The Defendants’ obstruction of business by closing of entrance doors

- - Ten persons:

- Not guilty: Seven persons (for a jury's unanimous trial)

C. The Defendants’ damage to property

- - Six persons:

- Not guilty: one person;

D. Violation of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (information and communications network infringement, etc.) against Defendant A and E

- - Ten persons:

- Not guilty: Seven persons (for a jury's unanimous trial)

2. Opinion on sentencing (as to the crime of damaging and damaging property)

- Defendant A: a fine of one million won for a total of seven persons.

- Defendant B, C, D, E: Seven full-times each fine of KRW 500,000,000

Judges Park Jong-chul

Judges Lee Jong-ho

The number of judges

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.