(a) The meaning of “labor movement” and “collective action for activities other than official duties” prohibited by Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act;

(b) The case holding that activities related to the Gangwon Teachers' Council do not constitute "labor movement" and "collective activities for activities other than public service" in this paragraph

A. In light of the relationship with the Constitution and the State Public Officials Act, and the fact that the Constitution guarantees the freedom of assembly, association, and association, while the Constitution guarantees the three basic labor rights of public officials only within the three basic labor rights, the right to organize, i.e., the right to collective bargaining, and the right to collective action as a concept of labor law should be interpreted. The limited right to organize refers to the right of subordinate workers to form and join a labor union organized by subordinate workers for the purpose of maintaining and improving their working conditions, and to join and act for them. In addition, the term “collective action for activities other than public duties” under the same Act does not mean any collective action conducted by public officials for any activities other than public duties, but it means any collective action conducted by public officials. Article 21(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of assembly, association, and association, the principle of the Constitution, the purport of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith and duty of care under the State Public Officials Act, etc. should be interpreted as a narrow interpretation that “a collective action affecting the public interest purpose.”

B. The case holding that even if the defendant pointed out the opposition to the extension of supplementary classes, the strawing day problem, and the teachers' internal issues and contradictions in the education such as the promotion of teachers' withdrawal from the school, etc., or that he engaged in public relations activities such as the promotion of the need for the establishment of a full-time school, the acts of the defendant cannot be deemed as an act of establishment of a trade union or the trade union's ordinary activities, and therefore, each act of the defendant cannot be deemed as an act of labor campaign as referred to in the above "A", and since the acts of the defendant do not constitute an act of labor campaign as referred to in the above "A", it cannot be deemed that the defendant neglected to perform his duty of care for the purpose of violating the public interest because all of the defendant's activities took place outside of holidays or working hours, and there is no evidence to view that the defendant neglected to perform his duty of care for the purpose of violating the public interest.

(b)Articles 84 and 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act;

Defendant

Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court Decision 90No430 delivered on August 30, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

The court below decided on the premise that the judgment of the court of first instance, which judged the so-called "guilty guilty" as separate acts from each so-called "the judgment of the court of first instance," which rendered a verdict of innocence, is legitimate. According to the records, each so-called "the judgment of the court of first instance," which rendered a verdict of innocence, is a series of preparation acts as to each so-called "the judgment of the court of first instance," which was pronounced guilty, and cannot be viewed as being prosecuted for an all-inclusive crime, and it seems that it was prosecuted for an independent charge, therefore there

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The Constitution of the Republic of Korea guarantees workers' right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action (Article 33(1)) in a specific manner so that workers who are economically weak can enjoy a life worthy of human dignity on the guarantee of dignity and value as human beings and the right to pursue happiness (Article 10). However, workers who are public officials have three above labor rights (Article 33(2)).

On the other hand, Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that "no public official shall do any collective act for any labor campaign, or activities other than public service, in accordance with the above provision on the right to work for public officials," and Article 84 of the same Act provides that public officials who violate the above provision shall be punished by imprisonment or a fine.

As a result, in a case where the law and regulations restrict the fundamental rights of the Constitution, the meaning of the restriction should be considered in light of the fundamental rights of the Constitution. In particular, in a case where it is a penal provision, it is required to clarify the meaning thereof and clarify the limit of punishment (the principle of criminal law). In general, in a case where the concept of "labor movement" is a comprehensive and ambiguous term, it is dangerous to clarify the limit of the act prohibited by it. Therefore, the relationship with the Constitution and the State Public Officials Act and the Constitution guarantee three rights of assembly and association, while the Constitution guarantees three rights of labor and freedom of association, the term "labor movement" under the National Public Officials Act means three rights of labor as a concept of the Constitution and labor law, i.e., the right of association, collective bargaining, and collective action, and the right of association restriction refers to the right to organize an economic association organized by subordinate workers for the purpose of maintaining and improving the working conditions and to join the trade union.

According to the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Gangwon School Teachers' Council or its affiliated organization at the time of the original adjudication pointed out the opposition to the extension of supplementary classes, the strawing day problem, the teachers' training and withdrawal from the school, etc., and it is a voluntary organization of the teachers to claim the improvement, and it has the nature of union formation and its activities for the purpose of improving working conditions.

Even though the council of classical teachers engaged in such activities as publicizing the necessity of the establishment of a pre-school group as decided by the council of classical teachers, such activities alone cannot be deemed as the establishment of a trade union or trade union's ordinary activities.

Therefore, each of the above actions of the defendants in relation to the Gangwon Teachers' Council does not constitute "labor movement" prohibited.

Furthermore, Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act limits not only the labor campaign but also the "collective act for activities other than public affairs". This is due to the universality and extensiveness of that concept, there is room for controversy regarding Article 21 (1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, publication, assembly and association with respect to public officials.

The freedom of expression, including the freedom of assembly and association, is the basic right for human beings to maintain their dignity, and it is also the same for public officials. In the case of public officials, the necessity of restriction may be expected rather than the general public in light of their status and the nature of their duties, but even in that case, it shall not be uniformly or completely limited on the grounds of its public nature or necessity, and even in the case where there are grounds for restriction, it shall be limited to the minimum extent (at least the principle of restriction), even if it is judged inevitable to limit the freedom of expression and the public interest to be guaranteed by the restriction, and it shall not be infringed upon the essential contents of the right (at least the principle of restriction).

Thus, in order to interpret the above laws and regulations as a collective act that does not mean all collective acts performed by public officials for any work other than public duties, it shall be interpreted as a collective act that affects the public interest by comprehensively taking into account the above provisions of the Constitution, the constitutional principles, the purport of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith and duty of care under the State Public Officials Act, etc.

According to the records, it is difficult to interpret the defendant's act, i.e., holding meetings of the Gangwon Teachers' Council, holding meetings of the subrogation committee and the standing committee, making and distributing speeches at lectures, and the newsletters of the East Sea Teachers' Council, for the purpose of the defendant's failure to perform his duty of care due to collective action, since there are no materials to deem that the defendant neglected his duty of care due to the collective action, it is difficult to interpret that the defendant committed "collective action for activities other than public duties." The judgment of the court below with the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the State Public Officials Act

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)