[1] Requirements for workers' industrial action to become a justifiable act under the Criminal Code

[2] In a case where a trade union goes to a strike for the purpose of substantially opposing the implementation of the restructuring itself, whether the legitimacy of the purpose of the strike can be recognized (negative in principle)

[3] The standards for determining the legitimacy of the entire industrial action where there are many purposes pursuing the industrial action, and some of them are not justified

[4] The case holding that both crimes are in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes on the grounds that the attitude of the victim and the act of the two crimes differs even though the crime of causing joint property damage was committed in the course of obstruction of business

[1] Article 20 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Articles 1, 4, and 37 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [3] Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Articles 1, 4, and 37 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [4] Articles 37, 314 (1), and 366 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Do4837 delivered on October 25, 2001 (Gong1998Sang, 636), Supreme Court Decision 99Do4837 delivered on January 20, 198 (Gong2001Ha, 2624) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da34523 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong192, 1839) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2871 Delivered on June 26, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1785), Supreme Court Decision 9Do5380 Delivered on February 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1290)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorneys Kwon Du-con et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006No2688 Decided November 30, 2006

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The defendants' appeal against the judgment of conviction of the first instance is apparent on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance due to the violation of the rules of evidence cannot be considered as the grounds for appeal

2. Furthermore, in order to become a legitimate act under the Criminal Act, an industrial action by workers must first be conducted as the principal agent of collective bargaining; second, the purpose of the industrial action is to start when the employer refuses to conduct collective bargaining with the aim of improving working conditions; third, the industrial action should undergo procedures prescribed by law, such as the consent of union members, unless there are special circumstances; fourth, the industrial action should not be conducted in harmony with the employer's property rights; fourth, the industrial action should not be conducted within the extent of violence (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Do588, Jan. 20, 1998; 9Do4837, Oct. 25, 2001; 200. 200. 20. 20. 20. 20. 20. 20. 20. 20. 201. 20. 3. 3. 201. 3. 201. 201. 201. 3. 20. 3. 3. 20. 3. 20. 2. Purpose of industrial action should not be justified.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles.

3. Meanwhile, in the case of joint principal offenders who jointly process two or more persons and commit a crime, the conspiracy or conspiracy does not necessarily need to be made directly, explicitly and explicitly, and in any case, it may be made objectively and implicitly, but there is a combination of intent to jointly process and realize it. In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective elements must be proved by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts which have considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and in this case, what constitutes indirect facts, shall be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts through the strict observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do6103, Jan. 24, 2003; 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006); and in light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below's finding that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts alleged in the grounds of appeal and the judgment.

4. In addition, according to the records, the crime of joint property damage in the judgment was committed as part of the disturbance during the process of obstruction of business in the judgment. However, the crime of obstruction of business in the judgment is committed not only by the victim, but also by collectively occupying the office of the Korea Railroad Corporation in a group over a long-term period of time, and by using force such as raising relief, etc. In addition to the crime of obstruction of business in the common property damage in the judgment, the form of the act is different. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes.

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)