Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. Defendant A is an employee of C Co., Ltd. who is the representative of D Trade Union C branch, and Defendant B is the deputy head of D Trade Union C branch.

C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) is a corporation that operates the business of manufacturing automobile parts with a factory in the Asia-siF from around 2014 to around 2014, due to the employment of former military personnel under the conditions of labor union membership, the introduction of two shifts each week, etc., and D Trade Union C Branch (hereinafter referred to as “labor union”) led to a complete refusal of business from October 27, 2015 on the ground that the company did not recognize it in spite of the cause of labor-management conflict, etc.

On June 8, 2016, the Labor Relations Commission sent a public door to the company to the effect that it can cooperate with the company to hold a family conference within the above factory. Although the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission respondeded to the purport that “the company is not allowed to hold a family conference within the factory due to the protection of occupational secrets, the maintenance of order in the company and the prevention of safety accidents” in consideration of abnormal corporate internal circumstances, such as the fact that the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission occupies a factory door, it continued to hold a family conference within the above factory around June 28, 2016. In response, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission did not comply with the foregoing and reached a physical conflict between the Trade Union and Labor Relations Management Staff. After that, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission, on the ground that the company took exclusive possession of the above factory C factory around July 8, 2016, and the company did not interfere with the investigation officer’s participation in the investigation station on several occasions but did not interfere with the investigation officer’s participation in the work site.”