All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ distribution of the instant printed matter by misapprehending the legal principles (Defendants) expressed to the people’s intent to engage in labor union activities that realize the constitutional value of public officials as a servant of the entire nation due to the establishment of a new KK labor union, and criticize government policies in the contents of the printed matter.

Even if such criticism is beyond the limit of public official’s freedom of political expression, it does not violate political neutrality by revealing political convenience in connection with a specific political party or political force by directly expressing the intent to support or oppose a specific political party or political force beyond the limit of public official’s freedom of political expression.

Therefore, the distribution of printed matter by the Defendants does not constitute a collective act under Article 58(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 10147, Mar. 22, 2010) and Article 66(1) of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 10148, Mar. 22, 2010).

(2) In addition, the Defendants’ act of distributing printed materials of this case constitutes “justifiable activities” under Article 3(1) of the former Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Public Officials’ Unions (amended by Act No. 10133, Mar. 17, 2010) as a legitimate activity of a trade union to promote the enhancement of social and economic status of public officials.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on collective action under the former State Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act and “justifiable activities” under the former Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Trade Unions, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. (1) The lower court sentenced the Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing.