logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2012.07.06 2010노1783
지방공무원법위반 등
Text

The judgment below

The part of Defendant B trade union shall be reversed.

Defendant

A trade union shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since Defendant A’s act of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is a legitimate act permitted under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, or acts that do not go against the duty of care or duty of care, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. On September 21, 2009 and September 22, 2009, the name of the P Trade Union was changed to B Trade Union after the merger with the L Trade Union and the N Trade Union was established. Around December 2, 2009, the report of establishment and the report of dissolution by the Minister of Labor was made.

Therefore, the public prosecution should be dismissed as the defendant union ceases to exist due to the merger.

C. The lower court’s sentence (a fine of KRW 3 million, and a fine of KRW 1 million: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too heavy or (a fine of KRW 1 million) is deemed unreasonable.

2. When comprehensively considering the purpose, process, preparation process, etc. of the execution of the instant case acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant A’s participation in the instant assembly constitutes an act of expressing political intent to exercise influence in the process of decision-making by linking with a specific political party or political force, or an act of politicalizing public official labor union, which is likely to impair the fairness of duties and infringe on the public trust, contrary to the public interest and disrupt the public official’s performance of duties, or detrimental to the nature of public duties, and thus, such act constitutes a collective act for the purposes other than public duties prohibited under Article 58(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act, while it is reasonable to view that it constitutes a collective act for the purposes other than public duties prohibited under Article 58(1) of the Act.

arrow