logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.04.20 2017노4632
노동조합및노동관계조정법위반
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. H and I transferred the position of the E Trade Union (hereinafter “the instant trade union”) to K, who is an employee of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) in the process of establishing three keyboards (hereinafter “the instant keyboards”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below in the court below, and installed the instant keyboards with E’s consent.

was stated.

B. In light of the location of the establishment of the instant self-reader, the Defendant was aware of the existence of the instant self-reader.

(c)

Ultimately, the Defendant had intention to assist the Defendant in operating expenses of the instant trade union by impliedly consenting or consenting to the installation and operation of the instant trade union.

2. Determination

A. The court below, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, was aware or intentionally committed by the defendant as to the assistance of operating expenses by providing the place and electricity for the installation and operation of the instant self-reader to the instant trade union without compensation.

The instant facts charged was acquitted on the ground that it is difficult to view it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. In a case where the appellate court, even though there was no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial, intends to re-examine the first deliberation decision and ex post facto determine it, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first deliberation decision was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair because it is contrary to logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, the appellate court should not reverse without permission any such exceptional circumstance (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017).

Based on the above legal principles, there is an objective reason to affect the formation of new convictions in the trial.

arrow