Defendant

Defendant

limited to the extent of transfer

Attorney Yoon Young-young

Suwon District Court Decision 2005Gohap1213 Decided August 4, 2005

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The defendant, as the chairperson of the non-indicted 1 Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") who is delegated collective bargaining rights by the labor union of the Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") on March 12, 2004, decided that it is desirable for the non-indicted 2's association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") to conduct collective bargaining after the restoration of peace between the labor and management upon receiving a request for collective bargaining on March 12, 2004, the defendant proposed collective bargaining after suspending the Association's lock-out and the labor union's strike and the union's strike and did not express any other intent to do so. Thus, since the defendant's failure to comply with the demand for collective bargaining on March 12, 2004 and the demand for collective bargaining on June 23, 2004, the defendant was guilty of failing to comply with the above legal principles as to the demand for collective bargaining since it was not a legitimate reason for the defendant's failure to comply with the demand for collective bargaining after the suspension of collective bargaining.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant case and the fact that the Defendant actively demanded collective bargaining after the instant case, the punishment of a fine of one million won imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles

First, according to the records, the defendant's failure to comply with the collective bargaining request made on March 12, 2004 and June 2, 2004, and the records, upon the defendant's request for collective bargaining made on March 12, 2004, sent a document stating that he defects in collective bargaining after suspending the strike of the trade union and the lock-out of the Association after the union's suspension of collective bargaining. It is recognized that the union's failure to express special intent is recognized, but the situation where the strike and the lock-out are under way to accomplish its assertion in the course of collective bargaining cannot be a justifiable reason to refuse collective bargaining. The above circumstance alone alone does not mean that the union implicitly consented to the defendant's proposal (or even if the union's demand again was made on June 2, 2004, prior to the suspension of the lock-out of the Association, it is difficult to view that the union's failure to comply with the defendant's request for collective bargaining as legitimate grounds exist.

Next, according to the health team, records, as to the refusal to comply with the collective bargaining request made on June 14, 2004, it is difficult for the defendant to accept the defendant's appeal that the non-indicted 3's refusal to comply with the collective bargaining request made by the chairperson of the trade union, even though it is recognized that the non-indicted 3 sent a letter of urging the defendant to conduct collective bargaining on the preceding day, and that the contents of the letter of urging the defendant to conduct collective bargaining in good faith as to the defendant's avoidance of collective bargaining, not just cause for recognizing himself as a negotiating entity, but there is no mentioning relation to the power delegated to the Federation, and that the non-indicted 3 is included in the case of the franchise's request for collective bargaining as a negotiating member. Therefore, it is difficult to accept

Finally, in light of the fact that the Health Council and the Federation demanded several collective bargaining since March 12, 2004 with respect to the refusal to comply with the collective bargaining request made on June 19, 2004, it appears that the defendant had sufficient time to prepare collective bargaining, and thereafter, the circumstance that the defendant requested collective bargaining after the fact that the defendant requested collective bargaining was merely a reason for normal participation after the establishment of the crime of this case, there is no justifiable reason for the defendant to refuse the collective bargaining request.

B. The point of unfair sentencing

In light of various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal record, relationship of criminal offense, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances in which the Defendant appeals against the Defendant, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s punishment of fine of one million won, which the lower court sentenced against the Defendant, is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)