All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the prosecutor (not guilty part of the original judgment) and the reasoning for the judgment of conviction among the original judgment can be acknowledged that the defendant involved in the operation of a trade union by visiting N, K, L, andO.

However, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) shall be too unhued and unreasonable.

2) Defendant 1’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (guilty in the lower judgment) Defendant would pay money to I and J under the condition that he withdraws from a trade union.

There is no limited liability association, and there was no intention to control or intervene in the operation of the trade union.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1 on the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts) The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

① N, K, L, andO were originally engaged in a single unit of work with F, a single unit of work, and became an employee of the person who entered into an employment contract with the above company and entered into an employment contract around December 1, 2013.

On May 13, 2015, the above four persons considered that the total remuneration would have been significantly lowered compared to the outlined engineer who entered into a contract for a wage organization agreement with the company as a result of the agreement between the company and the company on May 13, 2015.

Accordingly, the above four persons first requested Q Q, a director, to arrange for an interview with the defendant.

② The Defendant had an individual interview with the above four persons.

It is recognized that the defendant has returned to the effect that he would withdraw from the trade union in an individual interview.