The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If an employer orders an employee who committed an accident or misconduct as to Article 2 of the Grounds for Appeal to submit a written statement of the time when he/she committed an accident or misconduct, such a written statement does not merely mean to report the circumstances of the case, but further means a criminal offense or rebuttal including “the content that commits a crime against one’s own misconduct” in relation to an accident that occurred in labor relations, etc., such statement is invalid as it is a compulsory enforcement on the internal ethical judgment guaranteed by the Constitution, which infringes on the freedom of conscience, and thus, an employer’s order to submit a written statement of the time is not a legitimate order

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ refusal to comply with the above order cannot be a justifiable ground for disciplinary action, in light of the following: (a) the Intervenor’s e-mail sent by the Intervenor after confirming the contents of the above statement; and (b) the Intervenor’s response to the Intervenor’s company’s company’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs on September 9, 2011, should be deemed to include the content of the crime of the death and the reflectivity; and (c) as such, it is reasonable to deem that the time limit for the Intervenor’s submission to the Plaintiffs does not constitute a legitimate order for business operation; and therefore, (d) the Plaintiffs’ refusal to comply with the above order cannot be a justifiable ground for disciplinary action.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the judgment below exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.