[1] Violation of the State Public Officials Act, 2009No4546

b. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

209 High Court 8213(Joints)

1. (a) . (b) west (62 years old, south);

2. (a) South A1 (63 years old, south)

3. (a) a lecture; A2 (65 years old, south).

U.S.C.

Attorney Lee Young-chul (Apon for all the defendants)

May 3, 2010

Defendant Western shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,00, and by a fine of KRW 500,000, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 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.

Criminal History Office

피고인 서A은 부산 부산진구 개금동에 있는 미초등학교 교사로서 국가공무원이었고 & 노동조합(이하 '&'라고 함) △장이며, 피고인 남A1은 부산 고등학교 교사로 국가공무원이면서 & ▲장이고, 피고인 강A2는 부산 여자고등학교 교사로 국가공무원이면서 & 장이다.

1. On June 18, 2009, the Assembly was established on May 28, 1989 and was in violation of the State Public Officials Act (the First Declaration) by Defendant A and South A1’s announcement on June 18, 2009, and was established on May 28, 1989, and the Union of Teachers pursuant to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers’ Unions. The headquarters has 252 sub-branches established on May 28, 198 by Seoul, Busan, Daegu, Mancheon, Gwangju, Daejeon, Ulsan, Ulsan, Ulsan, Chungcheongnam, Chungcheongnam, Chungcheongnam, Chungcheongnam-do, and Jeju, 16 wide-area branch offices, 252 sub-branchs established on June 16, 2009 by Si/Gun, and 9,754 sub-branchs composed of the members’ school units belonging to the union.

Defendant A and South A1 were willing to criticize government policies with teachers’ signatures as well as other executive officers and members belonging thereto, such as T&C chairman, senior vice-chairman Kim C1, the head of the Seoul Branch Kim 2, the head of the Daegu Branch c3, Da34, the head of the Incheon Branch c5, the head of the Daejeon Branch c6, the head of the Daejeon District Department, the head of the Daejeon District Department c7, the head of the Gyeonggi District Department, Park Dog-1, the head of the Gyeonggi District Department, the head of the Gangwon District Department Dog-2, the head of the Chungcheongnam Northern Branch Dog-3, the head of the Chungcheongnam Northern Branch Da4, the head of the Chungcheongnam Northern Branch Da3, the head of the Jeonnam Branch Dag-ri, the head of the Jeonnam Branch Da8, the head of the Jeonnam Branch Dag-ri, Kim 10, the head of the Chungcheongnam Branch Kim Da12, and

이에 & 위원장 정C 등 중앙집행위원회 위원들은 2009. 6. 9. ♣ 본부 사무실에서 제360차 중앙집행위원회 회의를 개최하여 현 정부의 정책을 비판하고 국정쇄신을 요구하는 내용의 '6월 교사 시국선언'을 하기로 결의하고, 2009. 6. 11.부터 2009. 6. 15.까지 각 지부 홈페이지에 서명을 시일이 촉박하게 조직할 수 없어 17일 마감하며, 분회에서는 교사명단을 지회, 지부로 팩스를 통해 보내되, 비조합원도 가능하다'라고 공지하고, 또한 각급학교 분회장을 수신자로 하여 '교사 시국선언 알림'이라는 제목으로 작성된 문서를 팩스로 시달하여 “2009. 6. 17.까지 서명기간으로 정해 참여교사를 확인한 후 지부별 시국선언 참여 및 명단을 본부로 보고하라”고 지시하였다.

Accordingly, in collusion with Defendant South A1 on June 12, 2009, Defendant A recommended a signature-on campaign for the support of the assembly and demonstration of Busan District Teachers’ Act by posting a letter to the head of each school branch, stating that “The parts of the building site shall be registered only with the name of the school in the branch, or shall be distributed to the head of each school branch, by facsimile, mail, wire, and wire,” and that “the teachers who will participate in the Si declaration shall be on the bulletin board of the members of the Busan District Office and the Busan District Office’s website shall be on the top of the list.”

이를 통해 피고인 서A은 부산지역 교사 875명으로부터 교사시국선언에 동참한다는 서명 또는 의사표시를 확인하여 2009. 6. 17.경 피고인을 포함한 위 875명의 명단을 엑셀로 작성하여 ♣ 본부에 제출하였다.

이에 & 위원장인 정C와 중앙집행위원 등 20여 명은 2009. 6. 18. 11:00경 서울 중구 정동에 있는 덕수궁 대한문 앞에서 기자회견 형식으로 '교사 시국선언 6월 민주항쟁의 소중한 가치가 더 이상 짓밟혀서는 안 됩니다'라는 제목으로 “과거 군사정권 시절을 떠올리게 하는 공권력의 남용으로 민주주의의 보루인 언론, 집회, 표현, 결사의 자유가 심각하게 훼손되고 있으며 인권이 심각하게 유린되고 있습니다. 공안권력을 정치적 목적으로 동원하는 구시대적 형태가 부활되고 있습니다. (중략) 역사의 수레바퀴를 거꾸로 돌리는 이러한 민주주의의 위기는 이명박 정권의 독단과 독선적 정국 운영에서 비롯된 일입니다. 정권의 독선은 민생을 위협하고 나아가 민주주의의 발전과 함께 발전해온 생태와 평화 등 미래지향적 가치마저 위협하고 있습니다. (중략) 우리는 작년 온나라를 덮었던 촛불의 물결, 올해 노 대통령의 죽음에 대한 애도의 물결이 시대를 역행하는 현 정부의 독선적 정국운영에 대한 국민적 저항이라 생각합니다. 우리는 국민이 선택한 정부가 국민의 버림을 받는 불행한 역사가 되풀이 되지 않기를 바랍니다. 이에 우리는 오늘이 선언을 발표하며, 현 정부가 국정을 전면 쇄신하여 국민의 신뢰를 회복해 줄 것을 강력히 촉구합니다”라는 내용의 시국선언문을 '6월 민주항쟁의 소중한 가치를 기리는 정C 외 16,171명의 교사' 명의로 발표하고, 같은 날 ♣ 인터넷 홈페이지(www.eduhope.net)에 게시하였다. 또한 2009. 6. 22. ♣ 소식지인 '교육희망'에 위 시국선언에 서명하거나 동참하는 의사표시를 한 교사 17,170명의 명단을 게재하였다.

As a result, the defendant Western and South A1 conspired with the officers and the teachers of the assembly and demonstration to commit a collective act for purposes other than official duties.

2. 피고인 서A의 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률위반는 2009. 6. 28. 19:30경 교육과학기술부(이하 '교과부'라고 한다)의 2009. 6. 18. 시국선언문을 발표한 ♣ 위원장 정C를 포함한 간부 88명을 검찰에 고발하고, 시·도교육청에 중징계 등의 조치를 취하도록 요청하는 방침에 반발하여 ♣ 본부 제1회의실에서 제361차 임시 중앙집행위원회를 개최하였고, 피고인 서A을 비롯한 위 임시 중앙집행위원회의 참석자들은 위 회의에서 결정된 투쟁계획에 따라 청와대 부근인 청운동사무소 앞에서 집회를 개최하기로 결의한 다음, 피고인 서A 등 성명불상의 & 간부 20여 명이 2009. 6. 29. 14:05경부터 청운동사무소 앞 인도에서 '표현과 양심의 자유, 징계 법적근거 없다'라고 적힌 플래카드 1개와 '민주주의 죽이지마라! 표현의 자유 보장하라! 1만 7천 교사대학살 중단하라!'라는 문구가 적힌 피켓 4개를 들고 마이크 1개와 스피커 등을 동원하여 '표현의 자유를 보장하라'는 등의 구호를 제창하는 등 기자회견을 빙자한 옥외집회를 시작하였다. 그러나 그 집회는 소정의 절차에 따른 신고를 하지 않은 것이었다.

Therefore, on June 29, 2009, a voluntary dispersion was requested on the ground that the HongC13 was an unreported outdoor assembly by the chief of the police station who was delegated the authority by the chief of the police station. However, the participants in the assembly requested voluntary dispersion at around 14:45 on the ground that it was an unreported outdoor assembly, but the participants in the assembly, including the Defendant, did not immediately dissolve the following: (a) the first dispersion order at around 14:40; (b) the second dispersion order at around 14:45; (c) the second dispersion order at around 14:5; and (d) the third dispersion order at around 14:5; and (d) the participants in the assembly, including the Defendant, did not break up without delay. Accordingly, the Defendants: (a) conspired with 20 members of the above name-unreported and executives, and did not immediately break up upon receiving an outdoor assembly; and (b) did not immediately dissolve upon being ordered to do so.

3. Defendants’ violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act by the Assembly and Demonstration Act on July 19, 2009 (the Second Declaration)

가. 집단행위의 배경 및 모의 [♣ 1차 시국선언 전후 상황] 교육과학기술부(이하 '교과부'라고 함)는 2009. 6. 17. ♣ 및 그 소속 교원들이 시국선언을 추진하면서 서명운동에 참여하는 것은 국가공무원법의 복무관련 규정을 위반한 행위이므로 교원들의 참여 자제를 적극 지도하라는 공문을 시·도 교육청에 시달하였다.

Nevertheless, at around 11:15 on June 18, 2009, the Assembly issued a notice under the name of C and 16,171 teachers under the name of 16,171 under the title of "influent value of the democratic resistance dispute in June 18, 2009", in the presence of 20 members such as the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission and 16,171.

Accordingly, on June 26, 2009, the Ministry of Education held a meeting of the City/Do Deputy Superintendent of the Office of Education on June 26, 2009 and filed an accusation against 88 executive members including the above regularC, and requested the Office of Education to take measures such as heavy disciplinary action.

[2] On June 28, 2009, the First Central Committee was held at the first room of the Ministry of Assembly and Demonstration around 19:30 on June 28, 2009.

위 정C를 비롯한 본부 임원 9명과 피고인 서A을 비롯한 전국 & 16개 지부장들이 중 앙집행위원으로서 참석한 위 중앙집행위원회에서는, & 정책실장 동C14가 제361차 임시중앙집행위원회 회의자료에 따라 교과부 징계방침 발표와 관련된 경과보고를 한 다음 정C가 「표현의 자유 사수 및 ♣ 시국선언 징계 대응 투쟁계획의 건」을 안건으로 상정하였고, 위 안건은 위 중앙집행위원들의 찬성으로 원안대로 통과되었는데, 그 주요 내용은「① ♣ 본부를 투쟁 본부 체제로 전환하고, ② 2009.6.29. 14:00경 서울 종로구 청운동사무소 앞에서 기자회견 형식을 빌어 미신고 집회를 개최한 후 항의서한을 전달한다는 명목으로 청와대 방면 이동을 시도하며, ③ 2009. 7. 5. 14:00경 서울역 광장에서 3,000명 이상의 조합원이 참가한 가운데 전국교사결의대회를 개최하고, ④ 2009. 6. 29.부터 같은 해 7. 15.까지 1차 시국선언 참여자를 포함하여 최대 3만명 이상이 참여하는 '민주주의 사수, 표현의 자유 보장, 시국선언 탄압 중지 촉구’ 교사 2차 시국선언을 조직하여 발표하며, ⑤ 2009. 7. 19. 공무원과 교사들이 연대하여 집회를 개최하는 것」이었다. 위 투쟁계획에 따라 ♣ 부산지부는 2009. 6. 29. ♣ 부산지부 강당에서 피고인 남A1, 피고인 강A2, 부산지부 수석부지부장 박C15 등 부산지부 전임자 및 지회장들이 모인 가운데 2009년 제8차 임시지부집행위원회를 개최하여 ♣ 본부 제361차 임시 중앙집행위원회에서 결정된 집행사항을 원안대로 통과시켰다.

나. 집단행위의 실행[시국선언의 조직 및 발표] ♣는 2009.6.30. ♣ 본부 메일 계정(mail@L.or.kr)을 이용하여 ♣ 소속 전 교사들에게 정C 명의의 「위원장 서신」 이라는 제목의 이메일을 발송하여 2차 시국선언에 참여하여 줄 것을 호소하면서 시국선언문과 서명용지를 배포하였다.

이에 피고인들은 2009. 7. 1. 2차 교사시국선언 안내'라는 제목으로 '2차 시국선언, 분회에서 이렇게 조직해 주십시오, 시기: 6월 30일 ~ 7월 15일, 목표: 3만명, 대상: 1차 시국선언자를 포함한 전체교사 - 1차 시국선언자는 본인의 징계철회 촉구까지 포함 예정, 공개방식: 추후 논의, 서명용지는 반드시 지부사무실 팩스로 전송'이라고 기재된 & △장 명의의 문서를 작성하여 각 학교 분회장 앞으로 송부하였다. 또한 ♣ 본부 대변인 엄민용은 2009. 7. 2. 4, '민주주의 수호 교사선언' 추진, 이라는 제목으로 “표현의 자유보장, 시국선언 교사에 대한 징계철회, 교육복지 확대, 경쟁만능 교육정책 중단” 등을 내용으로 하는 2차 시국선언을 조직한다는 내용의 보도자료를 시국선언문 초안과 함께 ♣ 홈페이지에 게시하였고, 이에 피고인들도 같은 날 부산지부 홈페이지에 위 시국선언문 초안을 게시하였다.

On July 3, 2009, the Defendants held the 9th executive committee of the 2009 branch office in the lecture of the Busan branch and held around 16:00 on July 3, 2009, and held a committee for the second teachers' declaration from June 29 to July 15, 2009, public relations method: production and distribution of 5,00 copies in the name of the district office website, the former 5,00 copies of the district office website, the dispatch of the official letter to the head of the branch, etc. in the second case, and the assembly of the subjects in the second case, which led the branch branch to be organized by gathering the branch, the purpose of organization was to attract the branch head of the school: 30,000 persons nationwide, Busan branch 1,50 persons, and the second teachers' signature from the teachers of the Busan branch to the second teachers' declaration, and urged the branch to sign the assembly at the same place as that of the next 180th democracy.

이에 따라 피고인들은 위 기간 동안 교사들로부터 서명용지를 받거나 시국선언에 참여한다는 의사를 확인한 후 참여자 명단을 취합하여 ♣ 본부에 보고하였다.

Then, around 14:00 on July 19, 200, 200, 20 executives of the above political party, etc. and headquarters announced a press conference report containing the contents of “a strong efforts and accusation to confirm the legitimacy of the assembly and demonstration to withdraw the disciplinary action” at the Seoul square in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and announced the declaration of democratic heading teachers under the name of Jung-C et al. and 28,634 teachers.

In addition, a notice was posted on the same day and Internet homepage (www.eduhope.net).

위 시국선언문의 주요내용은 교과부의 징계방침을 위헌적인 공권력 남용이라고 비판하고, 헌법상 표현의 자유 보장 및 시국선언 교사에 대한 고발·징계 방침 철회를 요구하면서, 정치적으로 이해 대립이 첨예한 쟁점에 대한 & 소속 교사들의 의견표명인 1차 시국선언의 정당성을 주장하는 한편, ‘대통령의 자세 전환'을 요구하는 것이었다. 이어서 쓰는 시국선언 참가자를 추가로 확인하여 2009. 7. 23. ♣ 홈페이지에 시국선언에 동참한 교사 28,711명의 명단을 담은 동영상을 공개하였다. [7. 17. 범국민대회 참가] 피고인들 및 ♣ 부산지부 집행위원들은 2009. 7. 13. 16:00경 ♣ 부산지부 강당에서 2009년 9차 지부집행위원회를 개최하여 '2009.7.19. 개최될 예정인 ◇,◆ Ⅲ와의 연대집회, 부산지부 조직목표 : 160명 전세버스 4대(조합원 대비 4%), 상경자 명단보고 : 7. 16.까지 (지부 홈피 혹은 유선)'이라는 내용의 결의를 채택하여 같은 달 19. 서울역 광장에서 개최될 예정인 , , Ⅲ의 연대집회에 참석키로 결정하였다.

그리고 피고인 서A은 2009. 7. 14. 12:06경 ♣ 부산지부 홈페이지에 ‘교사 ·공무원 탄압 규탄 결의대회 참가등록, 일시 및 장소 : 2009년 7월 19일(일), 서울/부산출발 : 10시, 동래 중앙여고 앞, 교사와 공무원이 표현의 자유를 누리는 그날까지’라는 글을 게시하여 집회 참가를 호소하고, 피고인 남A1은 같은 날 13:26경 같은 홈페이지에 ‘교사 · 공무원 탄압 규탄 결의대회 참가 등록, 일시 및 장소 : 2009년 7월 19일(일), 서울 /부산출발 : 10시, 동래 중앙여고 앞, 우리의 서울 상경투쟁은 공무원들의 시국선언을 촉구하는 성격의 범국민대회를 통해 MB교육정책을 박살내는 집회투쟁입니다. 함께 합시다' 라는 글을 게시하여 집회 참가를 호소하였다.

Accordingly, around 10:00 on July 19, 2009, the Defendants around the 10:0 East Eastern, together with about 30 teachers belonging to the Busan District Office and around the bus to Seoul.

2009. 7. 19. 16:00부터 같은 날 17:00까지 서울역 광장에서는, ♣ 위원장 정C, 민주노동당 강C16 의원, 이C17 의원, 민주당 송C18 의원, 노C19 진보신당 대표, 임C20 민주노총 위원장, 이C21 전 민주노총 위원장 등이 ♣ 소속 조합원 1,100명, ◆ 소속 조합원 150명, 노동조합 소속 조합원 100명, 노동조합 소속 조합원 50명이 참가한 가운데 ♣ 사무처장 임C22의 사회로 '7. 19. 제2차 범국민대회'의 사전행사인 '교사 · 공무원 시국선언 탄압 규탄대회'를 개최하였다.

정C는 ◆ 위원장 정C23, ◇노동조합 위원장 손C24, III 노동조합 위원장 오C25와 함께 단상에 올라가, 위 정C23과 손C24의 연설에 이어 “민주주의를 원상태로 회복하는데 노력하겠다. 공무원, 교사, 국민 모두 힘을 모아 현 정부를 심판하자"라고 연설하였다. 그리고 집회 참가자들은 “온 국민의 시국선언으로 MB악법을 저지하자”라고 구호를 외치고, '시국선언 탄압중단', '4대강 죽이기 절대 안돼', '언론악법 저지'라는 정치적 구호가 기재된 종이모자를 쓰고, '민주주의 죽이지 마라', 'MB악법 이제 그만, 대한민국을 살려줘', '4대강 삽질 STOP' 등과 같이 현 정부를 비난하는 정치적 주장이 기재된 피켓을 들고, '토론의 성지 아고라', '민주당 서울특별시당, '창조한국당, '진보신당, '전국 운수산업노동조합, '다함께', '대안포럼' 등 정당, 노동단체, 사회단체의 깃발을 흔드는 등 시위하였고, 피고인들도 ♣ 부산지부 소속 교사 30여 명과 함께 규탄대회가 진행되는 동안 서울역 광장 등지에서 구호를 제창하는 방법으로 '교사 · 공무원 시국선언 탄압 규탄대회'에 참여하였다.

위 집회에 이어 같은 날 17:00경부터 19:00경까지 서울역 광장에서 ♧ 노조위원장 노D의 사회로 '민주회복, 민생살리기 2차 범국민대회'가 진행되었다.

During the 2nd pan-national conference for Democratic Recovery and Living Organisms, the participants in the assembly presented the relief that “the press act is withdrawn, and the freedom of the press is dead non-regular, non-regular.” The 4th garab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab lab,” and the assembly proceeded with the mass 10 meters in length stating

The public officials, including the Defendants, the Defendants, and the public officials of the Ministry of Agriculture participated in the second Position for Democratic Recovery in the manner described above. The second Position for Democratic Recovery, the second Position for the People's Position for Democratic Recovery, and the first Position organized by the camping organizations, etc. for the purpose of excluding and opposing the current government and policies, and the Defendants committed collective activities for purposes other than official duties in collusion with the members of the Ministry of Agriculture.

[Final Opinion] The Second Assembly Declaration is a subsequent activity that constitutes a political activity, and it is clearly political character, such as demanding the transition of the position of the party and political organization related to the state of political organization prior to the formation of labor, by asserting the legitimacy of the First Assembly Declaration, and demanding a change in the position of the party and political organization related to the state of political organization prior to the formation of labor, and it also guarantees the freedom of expression as a collective political expression by using the teachers' union.

By doing so, it was not directly related to the improvement of working conditions, which is the purpose of the establishment of the teachers' union, as well as to the improvement of collective political expression by using teachers' union which is prohibited from political activities, and it was an act that interferes with the official duties of public officials by repeatedly criticisming the disciplinary policy of the educational authority, which was the object of disciplinary action. In addition, the 'Abscopic and public officials' assembly planned in connection with the above assembly and demonstration was the same as the 2th Assembly and Demonstration with the aim of demanding the withdrawal of government's accusation and disciplinary action against the parliamentary declaration and political criticism against the present government. The 'the 2nd National Assembly and the 'the second National Assembly and the Second National Assembly of the Republic of Korea', which was held as the 4th Assembly and the 1st National Assembly and the 2nd National Assembly and the 2nd National Assembly and the 3th National Assembly were organized for the purpose of responding to the present government

이로써 피고인들은 ♣, ◆, ◇, III 소속 조합원들과 공모하여 공무원으로서 공무 이외의 일을 위한 집단행위를 하였다.

Summary of Evidence

[Fact 1]

1. In the second protocol of the trial, part of the Defendant’s statement made by the Party A;

1. Entry of Defendant South A1 in part of the fourth trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement concerning Park C27, Park C28, and Kim C29;

1. A written accusation;

1. List of the executives of the headquarters and branch offices;

1. Information about June teachers, official notices by City/Do branch, and information on the website;

1. Declarations:

1. The first declaration of the national origin;

1. Minutes of the Central Execution Committee, No. 360;

1. Official text (Direction of the national declaration of teachers' length);

1. Report on the status of information (the punishment No. 66060, 93319, 1st 229, 209);

[Judgment of the court below]

1. In the fourth protocol of the trial, part of the Defendant’s statement made by the Party A;

1. Some of the suspect interrogation records of Defendant A by the prosecution (No. 80106, 8453 and 131395 of investigation records No. 74 of 2009);

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning Kim Da29 and Park C30;

1. Statement made by the police against C31;

1. A press, a guide letter on the press, or a motion picture (No. 2, book No. 26 through 28);

1. Report on information status (the 3th page 18 through 24 of the above investigation records);

1. Investigation report (the second page of the investigation record, No. 38);

1. Each photograph (the 3th page of the investigation record, No. 25 through 32);

【Fact 3 at the Time of Sales】

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the fourth trial records;

1. A written accusation;

1. Report on information situation (as 1.00 p.m., 80106, 84533, 131395 investigation records), 1. Declaration of Dem. Dem. and Declaration of Dem. (as 1.7 p.m., 15 page);

1. Posting comments on the Busan District Office website (30 pages 20,000);

1. Data of a committee for execution of a branch office (prop. 69 of the above investigation records);

1. Results of the Central Execution Committee, set forth in Article 361;

1. The second building, the national declaration and notification of the execution plan; and

1. Goods posted as ordered by the Assembly;

1. Details of each e-mail;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (the above investigation records, the pages 373 through 376, the pages 377 through 380);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendants: Articles 84 and 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of each collective act and each fine)

Defendant A: Articles 22(2), 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the maximum point of a person holding an unreported assembly, the choice of a fine), 24 subparag. 5, 20(2) and 20(1)2 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of an dispersion Order, the choice of a fine)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Judgment as to the Defendants of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assembly and demonstration

1. Violation of the principle of an indictment only

A. Defendant’s assertion

Defendant A asserts that the following contents of the first criminal facts are contrary to the principle of an indictment only.

(1)피고인 서A은 ♣노동조합(이하 ♣) △장이다. …..피고인은 ♣ 위원장 정C 및 소속 조합원들과 함께 교사들의 서명을 받아 정부정책을 비난하고 국정 쇄신을 요구하는 내용의 시국선언을 발표하기로 마음먹었다.

(2) ♣ 위원장 등 중앙집행위원회 위원들은 2009.6.9. ….. 제360차 중앙집행위원회를 개최하여 현정부의 정책을 비판하고 국정쇄신을 요구하는 내용의 '6월 교사 시국선언'을 하기로 결의하고

(3) ♣ 위원장 정C는 …. 2009.6.11.부터 6.15.까지 각 지부 홈페이지에 …… 공지하고, 또한 각급학교 분회장을 수신자로 하여 '교사 시국선언 알림'이라는 제목으로 작성된 문서를 팩스로 시달하여 …. 고 지시하였다.

(4) 피고인은 ♣ ▲장 남A1과 공모하여 2009.6.12. '교사시국선언 안내'라는 제목으로 ...... 라는 내용의 ♣ △장 명의의 문서를 각 학교 분회장 앞으로 배부하고, & 부산지부 홈페이지 조합원 게시판에 '시국선언에 동참할 교사들은 명단을 올려달라'는 취지의 글을 게시함으로써 부산지역 교사들의 시국선언지지 서명운동을 독려하였다.

(5) On June 17, 2009, the Defendant confirmed that 875 teachers in Busan District were involved in the teachers’ declaration, and prepared a list of 875 persons, including the Defendant, X-gu and submitted it to the K-gu headquarters.

(6)이에 ♣ 위원장인 정C와 중앙집행위원 등 20여명은 2009.6.18.11:00서울 중 구 정동에 있는 덕수궁 대한문 앞에서 기자회견 형식으로 '교사 시국선언’ …… 라는 내용의 시국선언문을 발표하고, 같은 & 인터넷 홈페이지에 게시하였다.

B. Determination

In order to support the defendants' act as a group of acts prohibited by the law, the above contents are merely considered to be the process and legal character of the act in question, and it is difficult to view it as facts other than those required by law and thus, it is difficult to conclude that the procedure of prosecution is invalid due to the violation of the principle of an indictment only when the indictment procedure is invalid due to the violation of law, and therefore, the defendant's argument in this part cannot be accepted.

2. The assertion on the merits;

A. Defendants’ assertion

The Defendants and the defense counsel stated that ① the assembly and demonstration of this case is a mere expression of opinion, and the freedom of expression is fundamental right for human beings to maintain their dignity, so long as it does not constitute defamation, the assembly and demonstration of this case must be protected as much as possible. ② The assembly and demonstration of this case does not have any relation to industrial actions that interfere with the normal operation of strike, occupation, and other businesses, ③ there is no ground to deem the assembly and demonstration of this case to be contrary to the public interest. ④ The assembly and demonstration of this case was conducted on Sundays in the form of a speech and demonstration of opinion, ④ there is no relation with the duty of care in good faith, and ⑤ the signature is likely to be deemed a collective act outside the public duty because it is merely a mere statement of opinion, and it is unreasonable to judge that the assembly and demonstration of this case neglected the duty of care. Thus, it does not constitute a collective act under Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act.

B. Elements of the applicable provisions of this case

Article 84 of the State Public Officials Act provides that any person who violates Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts, and Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that any public official shall not engage in any collective action for any labor campaign or activities other than public duties.

Considering the purport of legislation of the State Public Officials Act in relation to the freedom of assembly and association under Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, the Constitutional Court held that the above concept is reasonable to be reduced and interpreted as a collective act against the public interest among collective acts for the purpose other than public service, rather than all collective acts (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2003Hun-Ba51,2005Hun-Ga5, August 30, 2007). The Supreme Court held that the "collective act for the purpose other than public service" under Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act does not mean any collective act performed by public officials for any purpose other than public service, but rather means any collective act performed by public officials for the press, assembly and association, the principle of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of association, the purport of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith under the State Public Officials Act, and the duty of care under the State Public Officials Act, etc. (the Supreme Court Decision 2005Do963, Apr. 26, 2005).

Thus, collective action prohibited by Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act does not mean any collective action committed by public officials for any activity other than public duties, but it should be limited to ① collective action that affects the public interest, ② neglect of duty of care, etc. for the purpose of contrary to public interest.

(c) Political neutrality of school teachers;

(1) Article 7(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that the status and political neutrality of public officials shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by Act, and Article 31(4) of the Constitution provides that the autonomy, speciality, and political neutrality of education and the autonomy of university shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by Act.

(b) Framework Act on Education;

(1) Education under Article 6 (Educational Neutrality) shall be administered to secure the purpose of education per se and it shall not be used as a tool for propagating any political, fact-finding or individual biased views.

(2) No teacher under Article 14 shall guide or instigate students for the purpose of supporting or opposing any particular political party or faction.

(C) Article 3 (Prohibition of Political Activities) (1) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions

No teachers' union shall engage in any political activity.

(D) State Public Officials Act

(1) Article 65 (Prohibition of Political Activities)

(1) No public official may participate in an organization of, or join in, any political party or other political organization.

(2) No public official shall engage in the following activities to support or oppose a specified political party or person in an election:

1. Soliciting any person to cast or not to cast a vote;

2. Presiding or soliciting a signature-keeping campaign;

3. Posting or causing another person to display documents or books at public facilities, etc.;

4. Raising, or causing another person to raise, any contribution, or using, or causing another person to use, public funds;

5. Soliciting another person to join or not to join a political party or any other political organization.

(3) No public official shall demand other officials to engage in any activity against paragraphs (1) and (2), or promise him/her any advantage or disadvantage as a reward or retaliation for any political activities.

(4) In addition to paragraph (3), the limits on prohibition of political activities shall be determined by the National Assembly Regulations, Supreme Court Regulations, Constitutional Court Rules, National Election Commission Regulations, or Presidential Decree

(2) Sub-determination

Since a public official is a volunteer to the entire people, it is necessary to pursue the public interest in a neutral position, to enhance the professionalism and democracy of administration, to maintain the continuity and stability of policies by preventing the intervention of politics in administration, to maintain the stability of the public official's status, to prevent any harm, such as corruption and corruption caused by the business system, and to actively take charge of the function of an arbitrator in conflict with the socioeconomic economy following the development of capitalism. Thus, the request for the political neutrality of the public official is ultimately necessary to maintain the impartiality of the public official's duty by taking into account the above grounds comprehensively.

As seen above, the demand for political neutrality for public officials is institutionally guaranteed by the Constitution and relevant laws as well as the autonomy, specialty, and political neutrality of education to teachers engaged in the field of education. In addition, the reason why the Constitution guarantees the autonomy, professionalism, and political neutrality of education is derived from the fact that education is necessary to be led and placed under jurisdiction by educators or educational experts so that education is not affected by the outside personnel's unfair interference in order to promote the stable growth and development of the nation, as the foundation of the nation's tenss. (The Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2001Hun-Ma710, Mar. 25, 2004). Thus, the political neutrality of teachers is being systematically guaranteed by the Constitution and relevant laws for the above public interest purpose, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that group infringement on the political neutrality of teachers is a collective act for a purpose contrary to the public interest.

(d) Scope of political neutrality of school teachers;

(1) The increase in the freedom of expression of teachers’ political fundamental rights refers to the people’s free expression of political intentions and the general term of political activities that participate in the formation of the State’s political intentions, and thus, the right to political freedom refers to the freedom to freely form and express political opinions without interference or control of the State’s power.

However, since the freedom of political expression is not absolute, it can be limited by law only when it is necessary for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution, and teachers also have the said freedom of political expression, but the freedom of political expression can be restricted due to the political neutrality of teachers as seen above.

(2) Sub-determination

According to the above Constitution and related laws, teachers are subject to the State Public Officials Act. In full view of the provisions of Article 65 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 6 and Article 14 of the Framework Act on Education, teachers are deemed to have recognized the freedom of political expression except for the act provided for in Article 65 of the State Public Officials Act, and the act provided for in Article 65 of the State Public Officials Act, to support or oppose a specific political party or person in an election, or to disseminate or oppose a specific political party or person, or to support or oppose a specific political party or party.

However, Article 3 of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers' Unions provides that a teacher's trade union shall not engage in any political activity. Since education is ideal and unauthorized in its essence, it is desirable to maintain a certain distance in education and politics because of the practical and political nature of politics, since it is the reality and power, it is desirable that education and politics maintain a certain distance. It is very large that teachers have an effect on the teachers of elementary and secondary schools who have a strong acceptance nature, and the activities of teachers are part of a potential curriculum that has an important effect on the formation, etc. of students' personality and basic living habits regardless of inside and outside working hours, and teachers' political activities may be accepted as infringement of the right to teach (the Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2001Hun-Ma710, Mar. 25, 2004). In view of the fact that teachers' political activities may be accepted as a beneficiary of education (the Constitutional Court Decision 2001Hun-Ma710, Mar. 25, 2004).

E. Whether the assembly and demonstration of this case violated teachers' political neutrality

The contents of the assembly and demonstration should be determined in light of the purpose, background, motive, and specific contents of the assembly and demonstration (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4513, supra).

이 사건 시국선언은 ① ♣ 소속 교원들이 주도하여 다수의 교원들이 집단적으로 의견을 표현한 행위인 점, ② 이 사건 시국선언문에는 시국선언 당시의 정치적 상황에 대하여, 이명박 정권의 독선적 정국운영으로 인하여 민주주의, 언론, 집회, 표현, 결사의 자유, 인권이 심각하게 유린되고, 공안권력이 정치적 목적으로 동원되어 촛불관련자와 피디수첩 관계자에 대한 무리한 수사가 진행되고 무모한 진압으로 용산참사가 빚어졌으며, 전직 대통령의 죽음도 이와 무관하지 않고, 위와 같은 이명박 정권의 독선으로 인하여 민생, 민주주의의 발전, 생태와 평화 등 미래지향적 가치, 서민들의 생존권이 위협받고, 낡은 토목경제 논리로 강산이 파괴되는 위기에 놓여 있으며, 남북간의 화해와 평화가 심각하게 위협받는 등 국민의 생존과 국가의 미래가 총체적 위험에 직면하고 있고, 공교육이 파괴되고, 교육민주화를 거꾸로 돌리는 시대역행이 진행되고 있다고 하면서 이명박 정부에 대하여 국정을 전면 쇄신하여 국민의 신뢰를 회복하여 주고, 학교운영의 민주화가 회복되기를 촉구하였고, ㉮ 정부는 공권력의 남용에 대해 국민 앞에 사과하고 국정을 쇄신하라, 9 헌법에 보장된 언론과 집회와 양심의 자유와 인권을 철저히 보장하라, ㉰ 특권층 위주의 정책을 중단하고 사회적 약자를 배려하는 정책을 추진하라, 라 미디어법 등 반민주 악법 강행 중단하고, 한반도 대운하 재추진 의혹 해 소하라는 등의 요구사항을 기재한 점, ③ 위와 같은 이 사건 시국선언의 기재내용에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 시국선언문은 현재의 정치적 상황은 민주주의 등이 위협받고 있는 상황이고, 이는 이명박 정부의 독선적 정국운영 등으로 인한 것이라고 하면서, 이명박 정부의 정책인 미디어법과 한반도 대운하에 대한 반대의 의사표시를 하였고, 현재 정권을 담당하여 정부를 운영하고 있는 특정 정치세력에 대한 비판과 반대의 의사표시

It is reasonable to see that it is "."

Thus, the assembly and demonstration of this case violated teachers' political neutrality as it expressed a political opinion that contains criticism and opposition against a specific political force in group.

F. Sub-decision

The assembly and demonstration of this case is against the public interest by infringing upon teachers’ political neutrality, and it is reasonable to view it as an act that affects the duty of care, such as neglecting the duty of care, as long as the assembly and demonstration was conducted for the purpose contrary to the public interest. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants collectively infringed upon teachers’ political neutrality and thus, it constitutes a collective act other than public duties prohibited under Article 66(1) of the

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Park Jong-k