beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal reveals that the Defendants, upon the conclusion of the negotiation with the dead party, rejected the remaining business of this case in advance at a time when the deceased party could not anticipate without undergoing the procedure prescribed by the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and thereby resulting in a serious confusion or enormous damage to the business operation of the deceased party. As such, the Defendants’ above act constitutes the crime of interference with business by force.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The crime of interference with business is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force (Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act), and “defensive force” means any form of force that may lead to the suppression and confusion of a person’s free will.
As a strike (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), a strike (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act) does not merely refuse to provide labor under a labor contract, but rather exercises the power to collectively suspend the provision of labor to accomplish the worker's assertion by imposing pressure on the employer. Thus, the strike includes the elements of force as referred
However, workers have, in principle, the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions as the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea). Thus, a strike as an industrial action does not always constitute the crime of interference with business. In light of the circumstances before and after, after, after, and after, the industrial action, it can be evaluated that the free will to continue the operation of the business may cause serious confusion or confusion in the employer’s business operation.