Defendant 1 and seven others

Kim Jong-ju

Attorney Lee Jae-chul

Defendant 1, 2, and 5 (Defendant 3 of the Supreme Court and the second instance judgment) shall be punished by a fine of 5,000,000 won, by a fine of 3,00,000 won, Defendant 3 shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won, Defendant 6, 7, and 8 shall be punished by a fine of 1,00,000 won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 50,000 per day into one day.

Of detention days before the rendering of a judgment, for defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4, two days respectively, and for defendants 5, 6, 7, and 8, one day respectively shall be included in the period of detention in the workhouse.

Defendant 1 is a public official belonging to ○○○○-Gun branch of the Korean Public Officials’ Union; Defendant 2 is a public official working for ○○○-Gun branch office; Defendant 3 is the head of the Cheongnam-do Party office of △○○○ Gun Office; Defendant 4 is a public official working for the finance department of ○○○ Gun Office; Defendant 5 is the head of the ○○ Gun branch office of the Korean Public Officials’ Union; Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and 8 is a member of the ○○○ Gun branch office

1. The Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, who are public officials of ○○ Military, and the Korean Public Officials' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "major labor union") to which the Defendants belong was requested to voluntarily close the office of the major labor-management-military branch by the ○○○ Military Office around August 18, 2006, which was set out in the Foreign Trade Union Act, but refused to accept the request. On September 8 of the same year and around the 13th day of the same month, the Defendants refused to receive the relocation of the office of the major labor-management-military branch office by mail even after receiving the delivery by mail. In order to prevent the vicarious execution of administrative execution as the office of the major labor-management-military branch office by the ○○○○ Military branch office by the mail on the 2

On September 25, 2006, between 09:00 and 15:55 on the same day, Defendant 2 and 5 at the ○○○ Military Office located in Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter omitted) to close the office of major labor-management ○○○ Military Branch, and Defendant 2 and 5, who are the chief of the autonomous administration division of ○○○○ Military Branch, are punished by physical fighting, such as dumping the ebbbb, etc., while serving the public officials belonging to Nonindicted 1, etc., who are the chief of the department of autonomous administration division of ○○○○ Military Branch, who are the chief of the division of autonomous administration division of ○○○○ Military Branch, who are in charge of serving in the office of major labor-management ○○ Military Branch, along with the members belonging to the major labor-management ○○ Military Branch, e.g., dump to the stairs, corridor, entrance, etc., with the entrance of major labor-management ○○ Military Branch.

2. Defendants 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8

In spite of the fact that a public official does not engage in any collective action for any labor campaign or other work other than a public official, he/she committed collective action for labor campaign or other work other than a public official by preventing the closure of the office of major labor-management, ○○ Military Branch, such as the preceding paragraph.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 6, 7, and 8;

1. In the first protocol of trial, parts of the statements made by Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; and

1. Some statements made by the Defendants and Nonindicted 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 in each of the police interrogation records

1. Statement of the police statement on Nonindicted 15

1. Each investigation report (fact that prior notice of administrative vicarious execution is given);

1. A work status ledger;

1. Boligrapher, field debt collection photographs, photographs, and video-recording leaves;

1. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserts that since the vicarious administrative execution, which was the foundation of the instant case, is illegal vicarious execution, the acts of resistance against the Defendants constitute legitimate self-defense or legitimate acts, as a defensive act against the unlawful performance of official duties.

In light of the records, it is difficult to accept the Defendants’ assertion and defense counsel’s assertion on the premise that the administrative vicarious execution in this case is unlawful, as long as there is no illegality in the process of maintaining the fairness of the administrative vicarious execution in this case, as long as the administrative vicarious execution in this case was not revoked, and it is difficult to view the Defendants’ respective acts to constitute self-defense or legitimate acts.

2. Defendant 6, 7, and 8 asserted that there was a public contest, but there was no fact in the office on the day of the instant case. As such, the public contest in which two or more persons jointly process a crime is not required under the law, but is combined with the intent of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. Even if there is a conspiracy between two or more persons, the public contest relationship is established if the intention is reached by agreement among several persons, and even if there is no direct participation in the act of the conspiracy, the person who did not directly participate in the act of the conspiracy is held liable as a co-principal. According to each of the above evidence, the above defendants are held liable as a co-principal for the act of the other. According to the evidence, there is a public contest relationship between the above defendants and other accomplices, such as the fact that the above defendants had an administrative vicarious execution, and the office is called the office, and thus, the above defendants' assertion is not accepted.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendants: Articles 144(1), 136(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (each special obstruction of performance of official duties)

Defendant 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8: Articles 82 and 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act (a group action outside the official duties)

2. Selection of punishment;

Defendants: Selection of each fine

3. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

4. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendants: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

5. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention;

Defendants: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Some of the Defendants not only have the history of punishment for the same kind of crime but also obstructing the performance of official duties as a public official status. However, the Defendants’ crime of this case was established under the previous agreement with the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Branch, which led to the administrative vicarious execution without consultation among the branches of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and led to the Defendants’ physical prevention of the execution of the crime of this case, by taking account of the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, the degree of participation, the circumstances before and after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records of this case, such as the occurrence of the crime of this case.

Judges Kim Jong-il