beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 100.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A shall be the chairperson of the metal labor union D Committee, and the defendant B shall be the vice-chairperson of the Committee.
On November 22, 2013, M/H Consultation (M/H consultation means “M/H consultation,” “one hour for a person,” and the representative of each department responsible for the production of each product, and the head of the private side department agreed to consult, coordinate, in advance, with a certain period of time, the number of works and the reinforcement of equipment combined with the new one; hereinafter “instant consultation” or “M/H consultation”; but the consultation was completed on November 25, 2013; hereinafter the “M/H consultation”); and when the person produces new products, such as a new one-time vehicle, he/she would make it possible to make it possible for the person to participate in the production of the new product.
However, on November 22, 2013, the foregoing company’s disciplinary action against G, which is a member of the union, was defective, and the labor union’s representatives, as of November 25, 2013, planned against this, were postponed the continuation of “instant M/H consultation” and the preparation of a written agreement.
However, as scheduled, the above company attempted to give an input for production of a new F Hybrid vehicle, and the Defendants are expected to suspend the production of a new F Hybrid vehicle on November 25, 2013 on the ground that the members, including the above union members, were not able to complete the agreement of this case at the victim E Co., Ltd. E Co., Ltd. located in Asan-si around November 25, 2013, and the above union members, but Defendant A predicted that he would suspend the production of a new Hybrid vehicle on the ground that the agreement of this case was not completed. However, Defendant A supported the above union members’ plan for suspension of the name of the union members, and Defendant B also supported the above plan.