All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) 1 is a legitimate special meeting held in accordance with the collective agreement in order to inform the union members of the process of collective bargaining and its result, and it cannot be deemed as an act of dispute.

Even if not,

Even if an athletic competition listed in paragraph 4 of the attached Table No. 4 (hereinafter “instant athletic competition”) is customarily held every year, and its nature is clearly different from that of other general meetings, it cannot be assessed as a dispute.

B) The total limitation of the right to act of the “person engaged mainly in the production of military supplies” is unconstitutional, and most defense industries have exported considerable parts of the mountain supplies. Thus, Article 41(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Labor Relations Adjustment Act”) should be construed as prohibiting the act of “limited to cases where the production of military supplies is likely to be disturbed or at least likely to be harmful.”

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal principles (as to the portion of the judgment below’s acquittal), E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) was unable to predict that workers belonging to the production department of the anti-industrial materials who are unable to engage in the act of dispute under the Trade Union Act should go to the strike. Thus, the Defendants’ refusal to provide collective labor constitutes a strike clearly unlawful, and thus, the Defendants’ refusal to provide collective labor is naturally recognized as a whole, and there is a huge degree of damage, such as that the E’s estimated loss from such strike reaches KRW 2.170 million.

Therefore, the defendants' refusal to provide collective labor.