[1] The elements for establishing a crime of intrusion upon a structure

[2] Criteria for determining the legitimacy of an industrial action to achieve matters that cannot be a form of industrial action or collective bargaining that occupies workplace or workplace facilities

[1] Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and Article 4 of the Trade Union

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Do419 delivered on May 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1944), Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755 Delivered on November 13, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1695) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Do383 Delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1959), Supreme Court Decision 99Do4893 Delivered on April 24, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 1294) (Gong207Do5204 Delivered on December 28, 2007)

Defendant 1 and 23 others

Defendants

Law Firm citizen, Attorney Jeon Young-sik

Suwon District Court Decision 2010No1160 decided July 13, 2010

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the crime of intrusion upon a building is a de facto residential peace and protected legal interest, if a building managed by a person enters the building against the explicit or implied intent of the manager, the crime of intrusion upon a building is established (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Do419, May 10, 1996; 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008, etc.).

On the other hand, workers' occupation or place of business is a form of an active industrial action, and the range of occupation is part of the workplace or place of business, and the employer's access to or control over the workplace or place of business does not go through concurrently, it can be viewed as a legitimate industrial action. However, unlike this, the act of causing suspension or confusion by blocking access by any person other than union members or excluding the employer's control over the employer's access to the workplace or place of business by occupying the workplace or place of business entirely and exclusively, goes beyond the bounds of legitimacy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do5204, Dec. 28, 2007; 2007Do4893, Apr. 24, 201; 2010Do1030, Jan. 27, 2011). Thus, the act of industrial action seeking to achieve matters that cannot be subject to collective bargaining is justifiable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do4893, Apr.

The court below held that, while maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds that the union members of the branch of a two-dimensional motor vehicle in the Republic of Korea occupy the Pyeongtaek-si factory in full, and the purpose of occupation was to prevent the company's restructuring, and that it cannot be seen as a legitimate industrial action since the purpose of occupation was to prevent the company from entering the above factory by reporting a lock-out to the administrative agency and requesting the above union members who occupy the above factory to leave the factory, the defendants expressed their intention not to enter the company's place of business, and even if they knew of such circumstances, such act constitutes a crime of intrusion upon the company's intent, and the defendants' entry into the above factory by a peaceful method as part of the national public official labor union's educational activities with the consent of the above union members cannot be viewed as a legitimate act merely because they entered the above factory.

Examining the above legal principles in light of the above legal principles, the court below did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of entering a structure and the legitimate act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)