A. Whether it constitutes an industrial action subject to the Regulation of the Labor Dispute Adjustment Act, such as collective withdrawal from office, absence from office upon application of monthly leave, and assembly, etc. of workers with the aim of promoting release for the employees under detention (negative)

(b) Where it interferes with the normal operation of the business of the company by refusing to provide labor services, such as collective withdrawal or absence from work in a lump sum under mutual contact with many workers for other purposes than the purpose of industrial action, not for other than the purpose of industrial action (affirmative);

(c) The nature of the crime of interference with business where multiple workers collectively request a monthly paid leave to be used as a means of interference with the business without any justifiable purpose, and thereby hinder the normal operation of the company’s business (affirmative)

A. An industrial action under Article 3 of the Dispute Mediation Act is an act conducted in order to accomplish the claim by the parties to the dispute, and its argument here refers to a claim between the parties to the labor relationship regarding working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment as stipulated in Article 2 of the same Act. Thus, an industrial action not mainly aimed at maintaining or improving such working conditions shall not be deemed to be an industrial action subject to the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, which is subject to the regulation of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act. Thus, if the industrial action is mainly conducted for the purpose of promoting and promoting the release of the detained workers, such as collective retirement, absence from office by the application of monthly leave, and meeting with the chairman of the trade union, the defendant's act does not constitute an industrial action subject to the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, which is the main purpose of maintaining or improving working conditions, and thus does not constitute an industrial action subject to the Labor Dispute Mediation Act.

B. If multiple workers refuse to provide labor on a lump sum basis or absence from work under mutual communication for other purposes, other than the purpose of industrial action, such as the maintenance or improvement of working conditions, and thereby hindering the normal operation of the company’s business, it shall be deemed that the act constitutes interference with the business through multiple force.

C. The use of monthly paid leave under the Labor Standards Act is entrusted to the employee’s free will, and it does not have the authority to change the period to the employer, unlike the annual paid leave. However, in a case where multiple workers are collectively absent from work on a daily basis by applying a monthly paid leave in order to use it as a means of interference with business affairs without a legitimate industrial action, it is inevitable to view that the act of interference with business affairs constitutes a interference with the normal operation of the company.

(b)Article 2 and Article 3(b) of the Trade Dispute Adjustment Act;

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorneys Shin Jae-in et al.

Busan High Court Decision 90No785 delivered on November 22, 1990

The guilty part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant and the non-guilty part of the crime of interference with business shall be reversed and remanded to Busan High Court.

The prosecutor's remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above industrial action was conducted for the purpose of accomplishing the claim of the parties to the industrial action from 0th 7th 1st son of Busan High Court by holding the above industrial action under Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Adjustment Act, and it is not limited to the allegation regarding working conditions, and thus, it constitutes industrial action, and held that the above industrial action interfered with the normal operation of the labor union with the intention of gaining more favorable judgment from 0th 7th 1st son of the above industrial action, and that the provision regarding the prohibition of industrial action under Chapter 2 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act shall apply to the above industrial action, and that the defendant, by holding the above 10th 5th ju son of the above industrial action from 0th 10th 7th 190 to 17th 15th 190, who was elected as the chairman of the above industrial action at the 10th 5th 1st 5th 1st 2nd 1990.

(2) However, an industrial action under Article 3 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act is an act conducted with the aim of accomplishing the claim by the parties to the industrial dispute, and its assertion refers to a claim between the parties to the industrial relationship regarding working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment as stipulated in Article 2 of the same Act. Thus, an industrial action not primarily aimed at maintaining or improving the above working conditions shall not be deemed to be an industrial action subject to the regulation of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act.

Among the evidence admitted by the court below, the examination of the suspect's suspect (including the examination records 9 through 18 which were cited in the examination of suspect) of the defendant by the public prosecutor and the examination of a democratic voyage bound by the records are discussed in the provisional council of February 6, 1990, such as the sentence for detained workers, the number of full-time officers of the labor union, and the transfer or taking-off of the chairman of the labor union, but the industrial action such as collective retirement, absence by the application of monthly leave, and the meeting was mainly conducted for the purpose of promoting release, since it cannot be deemed that the act of the defendant's decision is the industrial action for the main purpose of maintaining or improving working conditions, and it does not constitute industrial action subject to the Labor Dispute Mediation Act.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to industrial action, and there is a reason to discuss this issue. Therefore, the judgment of the court below does not dismiss the defendant's guilty portion in the judgment below without any need to make a decision as to whether there is another appeal

2. We examine the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that among the facts charged in this case, the crime of interference with business was established by: (a) the defendant, in collusion with the non-indicted 2, to leave early or monthly leave pursuant to the action guidelines set by the council of the above labor union representatives as seen above; and (b) the defendant's act of causing employees belonging to the above labor union to apply for multiple leave; (c) thereby obstructing the ordinary business of non-indicted 1 for 18 hours from around 10:00 on February 7, 1989 to 18:00 on the following day; (d) the crime of spreading false facts to the crime of interference with business or impairing the credibility of people by force or by failing to take other measures; and (e) the defendant's act of obstructing another's business by failing to submit the above employees' free will in light of the offender's above, number of employees and surrounding circumstances; and (e) the defendant's act of obstructing the above employees from participating in the public trial or remaining at the public trial without any other force.

(2) However, if it interferes with the normal operation of the company by refusing to provide labor services, such as collective withdrawal or absence from work in a lump sum under mutual communication with multiple workers for other purposes, not for the purpose of industrial action such as the maintenance or improvement of working conditions, it shall be deemed that such act constitutes interference with the business through multiple force.

According to the above facts charged, the defendant, as the chairperson of a trade union, retired early on February 7, 190 from the meeting of the representative of the trade union, held a meeting by withdrawing from the meeting on February 7, 199, and distributed the " Democratic Navigation Manual" containing the behavior guidelines to refer to the monthly leave before the Busan High Court's 8th day, and let a large number of workers who joined the meeting early retired or absent from office. Thus, unless it is known that the purpose of collective action is to accomplish the argument regarding labor relations, such as working conditions, etc., and it is for the purpose of accomplishing the claim regarding labor relations, and unless it is known that the defendant is an industrial action under the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, the defendant cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime of interference with business. As at the time of the original trial, the defendant is not liable for the crime of interference with business only if the defendant had the workers engage in collective action by using deceptive schemes or force.

The use of monthly paid leave under the Labor Standards Act is left to the worker's free will, and it does not have the authority to change the time to the employer, unlike the annual paid leave. However, in a case where multiple workers are collectively absent from work on a daily basis by applying a monthly paid leave in order to use it as a means of interference with business without a legitimate industrial action without the purpose of the industrial action, and thereby interfere with the normal operation of the company's business, it shall be deemed that it constitutes interference with business.

Although the court below should have judged the establishment of the crime of interference with business by examining the above points above, it is reasonable to discuss this point as to the violation of the law which affected the conclusion of the judgment through misunderstanding of the legal principles of the crime of interference with business and incomplete deliberation.

(3) Further, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence on the part which acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's conspiracy as to the violation of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act and the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to industrial action in a place other than a place of business among the facts charged in this case, but the court below's examination of the evidence relation prepared by the court below based on the records, and there is no such error as the theory

3. Therefore, by accepting the defendant's appeal and prosecutor's appeal, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and remanded, and the prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)