logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.03 2016노4348
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동퇴거불응)
Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendants, misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, did not withdraw from the meeting room of this case to directly hear the result of the meeting of the relevant departments scheduled to go through the am on the next day at the time when the meeting of the Seoul Office of Education (hereinafter “the meeting room of this case”) is imminent in order to resist the “Plan for Re-Rescue of School Affairs” of the Seoul Office of Education which improves the treatment of non-regular workers as executive officers of the labor union in the school.

Therefore, the Defendants’ above acts constitute the daily union activities of a trade union and their illegality is excluded pursuant to Article 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Labor Union Act”), which is an act that is excluded from illegality or that does not go against social norms, and such illegality is excluded by Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

In this regard, the first instance court, contrary to the allegations by the Defendants, made a judgment on the premise that the instant act by the Defendants constitutes a justifiable act as an employee’s strike. In such a case, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Shebly, each punishment of Defendant A, B, and C (the suspension of sentence of a fine of one million won, the suspension of sentence of a fine of one million won, and a fine of 700,000 won) against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. It is unfair that each of the first deliberation penalties against the Defendants by the Prosecutor is too unfasible.

2. Determination:

A. (i) Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (i) “act that does not violate social rules” as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that may be accepted in light of the overall spirit of the legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and the illegality is excluded as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

arrow