2015Do10126 (a) Business obstruction

(Partial Preliminary Crime: Violation of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act)

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (common property damage, etc.);

(c) Damage to property;

(d) Violence;

1. (a) b. (c) d. A;

2. A. B

3. (a) C.

Defendants and Prosecutor

E Law Firm

Attorney AA, F, AB

Ulsan District Court Decision 2014No259 Decided June 12, 2015

2016, 4.29

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court, on March 20, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A,: ① interference with the relevant business affairs from around 31 to 22:31, and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint destruction, damage, etc.), damage to property, and assault; ② Persons on November 23, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants: (i) Persons on November 29, 2012; (ii) Persons on November 29, 2012; (iii) Persons on December 5, 2012; and persons on December 14, 2012; and (iv) Persons on December 2012.

12. On April 29, 2013, among the facts charged in the instant case pertaining to Defendant C’s act on April 29, 2013, the court found Defendant C guilty of interference with business operations related to the suspension of 11 lines from around 00 to 14: 06, and from around 14: 03 to about 14: 05, and from around 14: 12 lines from around 00 to 05.

Meanwhile, the lower court, on the grounds the same as indicated in its reasoning, on March 20, 2013, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning: (a) the relation between 12Ra from 25 to 22: 25 on March 20, 2013 among the instant facts charged against Defendant A and 22:38 to 25 on the same day.

3. On April 29, 201: (a) interference with business by up to 01:15; (b) interference with business, among the instant charges against Defendant B and C, which is the primary charges concerning the act of himself on April 29, 2013, with business obstruction (excluding the part concerning suspension of 11 lines from around 56 to 13: 59 with respect to Defendant C; (c) from around 14:0 to 14:0 to 05; and (d) violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which is the ancillary charge, on the ground that there is no proof of the relevant crime.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

The Defendants asserted that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the duties, legitimate acts, and emergency evacuation in the crime of interference with business, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the lower judgment convicting the Defendants.

Even in light of relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err in its judgment as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, Defendant A appealed to the entire judgment of the court below, but Defendant A did not state the grounds for appeal on the remainder of the conviction in the petition of appeal and did not state the grounds for appeal.

3. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

The prosecutor asserts that the judgment of the court below acquitted Defendants on the grounds that there was no proof of crime on the part of the court below, by misapprehending the legal principles on the elements of the crime of interference with business, the conspiracy relationship, and the "industrial action not led by a trade union" under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, etc. In so doing, the court below did not err as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, but the guilty part does not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, nor states the grounds for appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae

Justices Park Young-young

Chief Justice Kim Shin -

Justices Kim Jong-il