(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.1.23. 선고 2018구합21301 판결

1. The Defendant’s decision to disclose the information listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table 1, which was issued by the Plaintiff on March 19, 2018, to the Plaintiff on March 19, 2018, is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's status

The plaintiff is operating a 1 factory and a 2 factory (hereinafter referred to as the '1, 2 factory' in order) in the Gu and America, and manufactures smartphones (in addition to various computer support functions in mobile phones, intelligent terminals added to various computer support functions) and network equipment.

B. The defendant's decision to disclose information

1) On February 19, 2018, C, a general program producer, filed a request with the Minister of Employment and Labor for disclosure of information as follows.

1. The report on the result of the measurement of the working environment of the Onnuri factory, the 2. Report on the result of the measurement of the Onnuri factory, the 2. Report on the same report of the previous U.S. factory, the previous U.S. factory and the previous U.S. 2.

2) On February 26, 2018, the Minister of Employment and Labor transferred to the Defendant the case of requesting the disclosure of information regarding the report, etc. on the result of working environment measurement of the working environment at the 1 and 2 places of business in the Gu, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on March 6, 2018 pursuant to Article 11(3) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), and requested the Plaintiff to submit a written opinion thereon.

4) On March 9, 2018, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a written opinion that the information should not be disclosed to the Defendant on the ground that the information constitutes “information concerning business management and trade secrets of a corporation, organization, or individual as prescribed by Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, which, if disclosed, could seriously harm the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc.”

5) On March 16, 2018, the Defendant: (a) held a Information Disclosure Council pursuant to Article 12 of the Information Disclosure Act to deliberate on whether to disclose the information; and (b) on March 19, 2018, made a decision to disclose part of the information to C to disclose the information excluding personal information (referring to the information specified in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1; and (c) notified the Plaintiff thereof.

The notification of the decision on disclosure of information to a third party: In principle, all information held by a public institution to satisfy the right to know of the reasons for disclosure (excluding personal information) in part, and the information of this case does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act.In addition, although the third party's opinion was examined, the information of this case was decided by the Information Disclosure Council to partially disclose the information except for personal information, considering the public value of the public interest, because it is determined that there is no reason not to disclose the information of this case.The date of disclosure: April 19, 2018.

C. Partial revocation of information disclosure decision

1) On April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing decision of disclosure of information and filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission.

2) On July 27, 2018, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission revoked the decision to disclose the information listed in Annex 1. Paragraph 2 of the same Table among the above decision to disclose information (hereinafter Defendant’s decision to disclose information as above on March 19, 2018) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) C requested that the Defendant disclose “A semiconductor factory work environment measurement report”.

However, since the plaintiff's 1 and 2 places of business are not facilities producing semiconductors, the report on the result of the working environment measurement of the work environment of the 1 and 2 places of business of the 1 and 2 places of business of the

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

2) Information listed in [Attachment 1. List 1. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “information of this case”) refers to information pertaining to business management and trade secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporations, etc., and constitutes information subject to non-disclosure.

Therefore, among the dispositions of this case, the decision to disclose the information of this case should be revoked as it is unlawful.

A) Of the report on the result of working environment measurement, the items of "department or process" and "unit work place" are important information on infrastructure, etc. established by the Plaintiff in order to produce products at the 1 and 2 places of business in the Gu and the Gu and the Gu and the Gu. Such information shall be kept confidential in order to maintain the production and competitiveness of products, and if disclosed, it is likely to seriously harm the Plaintiff's legitimate interests by exposing product production methods or technical know-how (confidential technology information) to competitors.

Accordingly, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission revoked the defendant's decision to disclose the items of â€˜department or process' and â€˜unit work place' as shown in attached Table 1. List 2.

However, in the report on the result of the working environment measurement, there are the same information as the information described in the "department or process" item and the "unit work place" item in the "place of work measurement (noise)" item (referring to the information described in paragraph 3 (a) of the list 1. 3. hereinafter.) of the "place of work by unit work" and the "place of work."

Therefore, information No. 1 constitutes information subject to non-disclosure.

B) As a result of the working environment measurement, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission, on the basis of the report, deemed "the result of light view (excluding noise) of light view by unit work place (excluding noise)," "department or process (noise)", and "unit work place" as "information subject to non-disclosure," and revoked the defendant's decision to disclose the same.

However, in the first and second half of the year of 2007 and the second and second half of the year of 2008, the same information is stated in the same information as the information mentioned in the "department or process" item, the "unit work place" item, the "measurement of measurement (name of workers; hereinafter referred to as "second information") item of the "department or process" and the "unit work place" item.

Therefore, information No. 2 constitutes information subject to non-disclosure.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached 2. The entry in the relevant statutes are as follows.

In full view of each of the above evidence, Gap evidence 1 to 24, Eul evidence 1 to 13 (including each of the above numbers), the following facts are recognized:

1) Business division of old and previous business sites 1 and 2

A) The Plaintiff’s business division is divided into (1) the DS sector that produces components, such as semiconductors, (2) the CE system that produces living goods, such as TV, cooling, and heating, and (3) the IM sector that manufactures smartphones and network equipment.

B) Of the foregoing, the former and the first place of business is the place of business in the IM sector, that produces network equipment such as base station equipment and facilities. ② The former and the second place of business is the place of business in the IM sector, which produces mobile devices such as smartphones through the process of development of parts, gold manufacturing, assembly and inspection of finished products, etc.

2) Progress of the preceding lawsuit

A) Daejeon High Court (2017Nu10874)

(1) On June 2014, E filed a request for disclosure of information on the Plaintiff’s report on the result of working environment measurement within the Asan Campus with the head of the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Office (hereinafter “head of the YY”).

(2) On October 30, 2014, the Administrator of the Yanan District Office rendered a non-disclosure decision on the grounds that the report on the result of the working environment measurement conducted by E constituted information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(3) On January 28, 2015, E dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed an appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission. Accordingly, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a partial ruling of citing the following information among the reports on the result of measuring the working environment in question on October 20, 2015:

○ 공개대상정보작업환경측정결과서 중,<별첨> 측정결과에서 측정공정수, 노출기준 초과공정(부서)수, 개선내용,1. 유해인자별 측정 및 노출기준, 평가방법,, 예비조사 결과에서 작업공정별 유해인자 분포실태, 작업환경측정대상공정 및 유해인자별 측정 계획 중 작업시간, 측정방법, 예상 시료채취, 측정건수,||, 공정별 작업환경측정결과에서② 단위작업장소별 작업환경 측정결과(소음 제외) 중 작업장 기온 및 습도, 전회 측정일,근로형태 및 실근로시간, 유해요인 발생시간, 측정시간, 측정횟수, 측정농도평가 결과,측정방법,③ 단위작업장소별 작업환경 측정결과(소음, 조도) 중 근로형태 및 근로시간, 발생형태및 발생 시간, 측정시간, 측정횟수, 측정치, 노출기준, 노출기준 초과 여부, 측정 방법

(4) On March 2, 2016, E filed a lawsuit with the Daejeon District Court (2016Guhap100927) claiming the revocation of the non-disclosure decision on the information other than the above disclosed information.

On March 8, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground that the remaining information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(5) On March 21, 2017, E appealed to the Daejeon High Court (2017Nu10874) on March 21, 2017. On February 1, 2018, the said court shall disclose to E all the information, excluding “personal name (worker’s name) as a result of the measurement of harmful factors according to each unit work place” in the report on the result of the measurement of the working environment.

The judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered (hereinafter referred to as "the Daejeon High Court Decision 2017Nu10874). The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B) Seoul High Court (2017Nu41988) Decision

(1) On April 10, 2015, F and five other persons filed a request for information disclosure with the head of the Gyeonggi-do branch office of the Korea Employment and Labor Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “head of the Gyeonggi-do branch office”) on ① all documents verifying the results of special supervision, such as the results of the Plaintiff’s report on the special supervision of industrial safety, conducted against the Plaintiff’s semiconductor Campus, ② all documents verifying the results of the diagnosis order, such as the comprehensive diagnosis report conducted against the Plaintiff’s visual interest and harmony plant, ③ information disclosure on all documents verifying the results of the diagnosis order, such as the safety diagnosis report and health diagnosis report conducted with respect to the G G’s workplace.

(2) On May 4, 2015, the Administrator of the Gyeonggi District Office rendered a non-disclosure decision on the following grounds: (a) the information (the report on special supervision over the scambus) and (b) the information (the report on comprehensive diagnosis of the scambus plant) constituted non-disclosure information.

(3) On August 6, 2015, F and five other parties were dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed a lawsuit claiming the revocation of the non-disclosure decision with the Suwon District Court (2015Gudan32302).

On March 15, 2017, the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the following: (a) the lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the following: (b) on March 15, 2017, to disclose the remainder of information other than information subject to non-disclosure (excluding part of information subject to non-disclosure) to the Financial Services Commission (2017Nu41988). (c) Non-F and five others appealed to the Seoul High Court (2017Nu41988). The lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on October 13, 2017 (hereinafter “Seoul High Court Decision 2017Nu41988). The foregoing judgment became final and conclusive

○○ Information Subject to Non-Disclosure ① A report on the results of special supervision over occupational safety and health with respect to the Plaintiff’s chemical campingus – The name of the inspector’s name (Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act) in the supervisory inspection table (Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act) (Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act)

- The degree of placement of a place of business, the current status of a major building (Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act) (Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act) and the flow of the main process (Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act) - The whole (Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act) - The name and content of the ingredients are partial (Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act) - the name of a chemical (Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act), the number of equipment (Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act)

3) Amendment of the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s guidelines

A) According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s guidelines for processing requests for disclosure of safety and health data established on January 11, 2017 (hereinafter “the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s guidelines”), (i) information shall be actively disclosed unless it falls under information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act; (ii) chemical substance by process, process, facility placement level, number of workers, etc. in a report on the result of the working environment measurement; and (iii) information pertaining to trade secrets developed by the company in order to improve the quality or productivity of products; and (iv) if disclosure is deemed likely to seriously undermine legitimate interests, such as weakening the competitiveness of the relevant company, such information may be disclosed.

B) However, when the Daejeon High Court Decision (2017Nu10874) became final and conclusive, the Ministry of Employment and Labor revised the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s guidelines on March 6, 2018 as follows.

The principle is to disclose all reports (Article 42 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act), except personal information (personal information) as a result of the assessment of the working environment (Article 42 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act), to determine whether to disclose each type of health and safety data.

4) Specific details of the Plaintiff’s report on the result of working environment measurement

가) 피고가 당초 공개하기로 결정한 정보는 별지 1. 목록 제1항 기재와 같이 ① 작업환경측정결과 보고서, ② 작업환경측정 결과표, ③ 별첨 공정별 화학물질 사용실태 또는 MSDS(material safety data sheet: 물질 안전보건 자료) 자료로 구성된다. 나) 위 ① 작업환경측정결과 보고서는 산업안전보건법 시행규칙(2016. 2. 17, 고용노동부령 제150호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제94조 제1항 별지 제20호 서식에 해당하는 문서로서 원고의 근로자 수, 주요 생산품 등의 사업장 개요, 지정측정기관의 명칭, 작업환경측정을 실시한 일자 및 결과 등이 기재되어 있다.

(C) The result of the working environment measurement is as follows: (a) the document falling under attached Form 21 of Article 94(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act consist of a simple sign and one attached (the result of the working environment measurement and the comprehensive opinion).

(1) The above marks include outlines of the workplace, the date and time of working environment measurement, the designated meters of working environment measurement, the designated measurement results, etc.

(2) The attachment mentioned above 4. The following shall be contained:

A person shall be appointed.

(3) In the above-mentioned Na or 1. The working environment measurement result (excluding noise) for each unit work place and the '(noise) measuring location (name of workers)' (referring to the information listed in paragraph 3(a) of the attached Table 1. List 3(a), i.e., information 1) of the 'department or process' and the 'unit work place' are almost the same contents as the name of the process and the name of the equipment stated in the items.

In addition, the first information contains a more detailed or incidental description than the information described in the "department or process" item and the "unit work place" item.

(4) From among the above caused causes, the "department or process" item, "unit work place" item, and "measurement (name of worker) location" item are also included in the "report on the result of working environment measurement of the first workplace in the first and second half of the year of 2007 and the second half of the year of 2008, and the "report on the result of working environment measurement of the first workplace in the second and second half of the year of 2008.

D) The above (iv) the actual condition of the use of chemicals by additional process or mDS data are included in the report on the result of working environment measurement since the second half of 2009. The chemical name or product name used in each process is written, and the “mDR management” portion includes the chemical name, constituent component, concentration, etc. included in the product used in each process.

5) On July 27, 2018, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission revoked a decision on disclosure of the information listed in attached Form 1. 2 among the Defendant’s decision on the disclosure of information as of March 19, 2018. The details of the decision made by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission of Korea are as follows.

Each part of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission’s ruling on the result of the work environment measurement (referred to as “nonpublic part” from No. 2-2-1 to No. 2-2-2 of the table) - Each of the above parts refers to the name and placement of the process of producing products at the 1st, 2nd workplace, and the name and quantity of chemicals handled by the process, equipment and facilities, and the order of major processes. However, each of the above information is information on infrastructure, etc. installed by the Plaintiff in order to produce products at the 1st, 2nd workplace, and the Plaintiff has a direct and significant interest in each of the above information to maintain the production and competitiveness of products. On the other hand, each of the above information is directly related to the protection of the life, body, or health of workers belonging to the 1st, 2nd workplace. In addition, if each of the above information is disclosed, it is likely that the Plaintiff may seriously infringe upon the Plaintiff’s legitimate interests by being exposed to the method of manufacturing products at the 1st, 2nd workplace or technical know.

6) Meanwhile, according to a report on the result of working environment measurement of the former and the former and the second places of business, the case where harmful factors subject to working environment measurement at the said places of business from 2007 to 2014 were measured in excess of the standards prescribed by the relevant statutes was not found only once.

D. A written request for disclosure of information by C whether a place of business of the former and the second place of business is a place of business that is subject to a request for disclosure of information is written with the document name of "(A semiconductor factory working environment measurement report)" under the title of "written request for disclosure of information."

However, under his supervision, "the same report of the former and the former and the second factory" is clearly stated.

Therefore, it is clear that C's request for information disclosure is subject to ‘report on the result of the working environment measurement of semiconductor factory' and ‘report on the result of the working environment measurement of the former and the former and the 2-U.S. factory'.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

E. Whether the instant information was disclosed

1) Details of the relevant provisions and relevant legal principles

A) According to Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, information held and managed by a public institution is subject to disclosure. (2) However, information pertaining to corporate, organization, or individual (hereinafter referred to as “corporation, etc.”)’s managerial and business secrets, which, if disclosed, is likely to seriously harm the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc., may not be disclosed. However, information that is necessary to be disclosed to protect people’s lives, bodies, or health from risks arising from their business activities, and information that is necessary to be disclosed to protect people’s property or life from illegal or unfair business activities are excluded.

B) The right to know, namely, the right to access, collect, and process information, is the right directly guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, as it shares the nature of the right to freedom and the nature of the right to claim. The Information Disclosure Act enacted for the specific realization thereof declares the principle of information disclosure by allowing public institutions to disclose information held and managed in principle.

In addition, in light of the fact that Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act lists exceptional reasons, a public institution requested to disclose information held and managed by the public should disclose the information unless it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure provided by each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, and even if the information is rejected, it shall specifically confirm and examine the contents of the information subject to disclosure, and claim and prove that any part of the information conflicts with any legal interests or fundamental rights, thereby falling under any of the above subparagraphs.

In addition, in light of the legislative purpose and purport of the Act that guarantees citizens' right to know and secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration, public institutions should disclose information held and managed by themselves, and it is necessary to strictly interpret such information as an exception to information disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du2009, Dec. 10, 2009).

In relation to this, the Information Disclosure Act provides for the purpose of protecting legitimate interests by preventing the leakage of confidential information about business activities of business chain corporations, etc. as "information that is deemed likely to seriously harm legitimate interests of corporations, organizations, or individuals, if disclosed, as business and business secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals under the proviso of Article 9 (1) 7."

In light of the legislative purpose of the Information Disclosure Act and the purport of the above provision, it is reasonable to interpret that the "business secrets of corporations, etc." under the above provision means all the "information on business activities which are advantageous to that of others not being known to others" or "any confidential information on business activities" rather than "trade secrets" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

However, the above provision shall be interpreted to be strictly interpreted in light of the legislative intent of the Information Disclosure Act as seen earlier (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13101, Dec. 23, 2010).

2) Determination on issues

C. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant information constitutes information pertaining to the Plaintiff’s business and trade secrets, which, if disclosed, could seriously harm the Plaintiff’s legitimate interests.

Therefore, the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is reasonable.

A) The Plaintiff, as a manufacturer of smartphones and network equipment in the Republic of Korea, has studied issues such as the arrangement of production processes, the arrangement of facilities, the selection of equipment and equipment types, the kinds of chemical substances in use, the composition of ingredients, the quantity of usage, etc. over a considerable period of time in order to have more developed technologies and production capacity than competition enterprises.

In particular, the plaintiff's smartphone products occupy the first competitive advantage of the world's sales, but recently, the rapid development of the world's smartphone market has become more intense competition with competitors and subsequent manufacturers.

Therefore, important information or technical know-how on the plaintiff's production of the product has considerable interest in maintaining it as confidential.

B) The instant information not only contains the name of the process and equipment, but also includes the content that included the name of the process and equipment stated in the item of the "department or process" among the part of the working environment measurement result (noise) for each unit work place (excluding noise), 'Na-2. Working environment measurement result (noise)', 'department or process', and 'unit work place' (refer to the evidence A, 16 through 20).

In addition, this information contains important matters concerning the process and facilities directly conducted by the plaintiff when manufacturing smartphones and network equipment at the 1 and 2 places of business in the Gu-U.S.

Therefore, if this is disclosed, the production information and research results accumulated over a considerable period of time should be disclosed to the general public without any protective measure.

C) As a result of the working environment measurement, the Central Administrative Appeals Commission determined as follows: (a) information listed in the items of “department or process” and “unit work place” among “the result of the working environment measurement (noise) by unit work place (excluding noise),” “the result of the working environment measurement by unit work place (noise)” and “the result of the working environment measurement by unit work place (noise) constitutes information subject to non-disclosure.

However, as seen earlier, the instant information also contains the aforementioned contents, and even some of the information stated in the instant information contains a further subdivision of the name of the process and equipment or an explanation by itself.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant information also constitutes information subject to non-disclosure deemed likely to seriously harm the Plaintiff’s legitimate interests if disclosed, as matters concerning the Plaintiff’s management and trade secrets, and there is no reasonable ground to determine otherwise only the information of this case.

D) Based on the Daejeon High Court Decision (2017Nu10874), the Defendant asserts that the instant information did not constitute information subject to non-disclosure.

(1) However, the above decision organized the fact that the "the level of measuring location and the results of harmful factors by each unit work place, other than the name of the individual (the name of the employee)" does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure as stipulated in the Information Disclosure Act, as the facts in dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the above decision seems to have failed to make a substantial decision on whether most of the information stated in the report on the result of working environment measurement is trade secret, and the above decision is inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

(2) In addition, the Seoul High Court Decision (2017Nu41988) ruled that the flow and content of major processes identical to the information stated in a report on the result of working environment measurement constituted information subject to non-disclosure as prescribed by Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, such as the flow of major processes, the name and content of constituent elements, Rain’s name, facility number, chemical name, etc.

E) In addition, the defendant asserts that the instant information constitutes "information that needs to be disclosed in order to protect the life, body or health of a person" under Article 9 (1) 7 (a) of the Information Disclosure Act.

However, the defendant's above assertion is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(1) According to Article 42(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, a business owner shall inform workers at the workplace of the result of working environment measurement, and shall take appropriate measures, such as the installation and improvement of the relevant facilities and equipment or the performance of health examinations, to protect the health of workers.

In addition, according to Article 40(1)2 of the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s notification on the measurement of working environment, evaluation of measurement institutions, etc. (Notice of Ministry of Employment and Labor No. 2017-27, April 28, 2017), a business owner shall faithfully comply with the result of the working environment measurement if the business owner requests the notification of the result of the working environment measurement or evaluation.

As such, business owners assume the duty to inform their employees of the result of working environment measurement under the occupational safety and health laws, it is difficult to deem that it is necessary to disclose the report on the result of working environment measurement externally.

(2) As seen earlier, according to the report on the result of the total working environment measurement conducted at the place of business Nos. 1 and 2, the case where the harmful factors subject to the working environment measurement at the place of business were measured in excess of the standards prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations from 2007 to 2014 was not found only once.

(3) The instant information is most name of a specific process and equipment, and is not directly related to the life, body, or health of its employees.

On the other hand, even if the information of this case is not disclosed, all information directly connected to the life, body, or health of the employees, such as the time when the harmful factor occurred and the harmful factor measurement concentration stated in the report on the result of the working environment measurement.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge and the associate judge;

Judge Park Sang-hoon

Judges Kim Gi-su

Note tin

1) The term "general programming" means programming broadcast programs to harmonize with each other in various broadcast fields, such as news reports, culture and entertainment;

the term "broadcasting Act" (Article 2 subparagraph 18 of the Broadcasting Act).

2) The above provisions have been enacted under Article 40(3) of the Working Environment Measurement and Accuracy Management Regulations (Notice No. 45 of December 11, 2007) (Ministry of Labor Notice No. 45)

At present through the alteration of the number and wording of the port.