Defendant 1 and three others

Kim beneficiary, literary (prosecutions), Park Jin-jin (public trial)

Attorney Park Jong-soo et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for 2 months with prison labor for the crimes set forth in the judgment of Defendant 2, for the crimes set forth in the judgment of Defendant 2, for 1,00,000 and for the crimes set forth in the judgment of Defendant 2, for 6 months, by imprisonment for 1,00,000 and for 4 months, and by imprisonment for 4 months.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 1 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 50,000 into one day.

However, with respect to defendants 2, 3, and 4, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On April 23, 2010, Defendant 2 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months by the Jeonju District Court for the crime of injury, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 1, 2010.

Defendant 1 was the chairperson of the Jeonbuk-si Trade Union as △△-si driver, and Defendant 2 was the secretary general of the above partnership, Defendant 3 was the head of the above association ○○-si branch as the ○○-si driver, and Defendant 4 was the head of the above association ○○-si branch as the above association ○○-si driver.

Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 joined the ○○ Transport Workers’ Union. Around July 2009, the association head was dissatisfied with Nonindicted 3, and around September 2009, Defendant 1 joined the ○○ Military Workers’ Union, which was the chairman, and around September 27, 2009, established the Jeonbuk-si branch of the ○○ Military Workers’ Union. Since then, Defendant 3 recognized Nonindicted 4, the president of Nonindicted 1-limited liability company, as the trade union, the said ○○ taxi branch, as the labor union, and demanded several times to change the number of teams, but refused, Defendant 4, including Defendant 4, on December 2, 2009, decided to install a tent with the labor union members of the said ○○ taxi branch and to prevent the farming from being installed, and to prevent the farming from being installed, and to prevent the 10th of the 20th of the 21st of the 20th of the 20th of the 1st of the 2010 taxi branch.

1. The fact that the assembly owner is not reported;

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report on it to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing such outdoor assembly or demonstration.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, without reporting the meeting to the chief of the competent police station from February 17, 2010 to March 14:40, 2010, convened with 30 members of the public space near the garage in Nonindicted 1 Limited Company, and held a meeting in the same manner as above, including: (a) Defendant 2 and Defendant 4; (b) Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 were holding a meeting in the manner as seen above, in the manner described above from around 00 to 14:40 on March 31, 2010; and (c) Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 were holding the meeting in the process of a strike and a relief initiative.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to hold an outdoor assembly that was not reported more than five times in total.

2. Points of special larceny and entering common structures;

Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 conspiredd to install a tent in front of the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Employment and Labor Agency Jeonjin-dong 1, 807-8, in the middle of April 2010, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, in the middle of the 2010, when electricity was required to work with the Nowon-gu computer or to use the wind, etc. in the front line in the front line of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Employment and Labor Agency, and demanded the adoption of the Trade Union of the ○○○ taxi branch of the Jeonbuk-gu Special Military Labor Union, which had been located in 807-8, to transfer electric wires by linking it with the upper line.

On May 4, 2010, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 combined with electric wires prepared in advance at around 12:00, and jointly intruded into the above electric poles, installed the said electric wires at the wall near the underground stairs, and connected them to the tent, and Defendant 3 linked the said electric wires from the date to 14:20 on the same day.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to intrude into the victim's building jointly, and used electricity of approximately 760 won at the market price owned by the victim and stolen it jointly.

3. Denial of eviction.

Defendant 4, in collaboration with six members of the Dong-gu Labor Relations Board on May 4, 2010 and from around 14:30 to 15:20, refused to comply with the demand for withdrawal without justifiable reasons, such as where he continued to wear a fat in the corridor even upon receiving the demand of the head of the general affairs division of the above branch office and the head of the general affairs division of the above branch office and the head of the Dong-gu Labor Relations Office, in front of the branch office of the above Gwangju metropolitan Employment and Labor Office, as referred to in the above paragraph (2), and became aware of the Do-gu as a result of the Do-gu electric change.

4. Points of inflicting an injury on a dangerous article;

Defendant 3: (a) from February 201 to October 201, 201, around September 27, 2011, around 21:20, Defendant 3: (b) around September 27, 201, around the ○○○ Office of the Jeonbuk-si Trade Union, the victim Nonindicted 6 (Nam, 49 years of age) left the said office’s glass, etc.; and (c) got off the victim’s head head head room by scaming the victim’s head room, which is a dangerous object on the said office’s glass; and (d) laid down the victim’s head room for approximately two weeks.

【Report on the Head of Assembly】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 7

1. Assembly photograph;

【Special thief, intrusion upon a building, and non-compliance with the eviction】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2, 3, and 4 in part;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 2

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 5 and 8

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 9, 10, and 11

1. Investigation report (Non-Indicted 12 labor inspector currency of the Jeonju District Office in Labor Ministry);

1. Photographss related to each theft, the amount of electricity used, labor clean photographs, and CCTV screen;

【Influence to Carrying Dangerous Articles】

1. The defendant 3's partial statement

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 6’s witness

1. Investigation report (related to confirmation of the number of days of diagnosis and the identity of the victim for treatment);

[Judgment of the court below]

1. A copy of the sentence of the Jeonju District Court Decision 2009 Godan785, 2009No1353;

The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the above assembly is not an assembly subject to the obligation to report under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and that the use of electricity is an act done under the implied consent of Nonindicted 2 by the Director of the Jeonju District Office of Employment and Labor in Gwangju.

Therefore, according to the above evidence and witness non-indicted 13's statement, the administrative guidance is deemed to have been given in a way that demands the head of the competent police station to attach the consent of the manager if there is a report on a place under the management of another person as much as possible. However, if an assembly is held without the consent of the manager, it seems to have been an administrative guidance to prevent the occurrence of business obstruction or damage, etc., separate from the conflict with the Act on Assembly and Demonstration. In fact, the defendants did not submit a report on the assembly before the assembly of this case. In light of the fact that the defendants did not submit a report on the assembly before the assembly of this case, and the place where the assembly was held by the defendants cannot be deemed to be a place where the safety is closed. Thus, this part of the argument is rejected.

Next, according to the above evidence, it is true that the defendants demanded the non-indicted 2 to use electricity with the implied consent. However, there is no circumstance that the non-indicted 2 made the statement that the non-indicted 2 had positive intent or body. Thus, this part of the assertion is rejected.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 22(2) and 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact that the assembly is not reported by the defendants), Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the fact that the defendants 2, 3, and 4 conspiredd by the defendants 2, 3, and 4), Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the fact that the defendants 2, 3, and 4 conspired by the defendants 2, 3, and 4), Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(2) and (1)(4) of the Criminal Act, Article 32(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant 1: Selection of fine

Defendant 2, 3, and 4: Selection of imprisonment

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant 2);

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (defendants 2, 3, 4);

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 (with respect to Defendant 2, the crime of special larceny, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence) shall be limited to the extent that the punishment is added up to the sum of the maximum punishment of the above two crimes), Defendant 3 shall be subject to concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for special larceny with the heavier punishment (within the extent that the punishment is added up to the sum of the maximum punishment of the above two crimes), Defendant 3 shall be subject to concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapon, etc.) with the largest punishment; Defendant 4 shall be subject to concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed

1. Mitigation (Defendant 2, 3, 4);

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Code

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 2, 3, and 4);

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (Special Theft by Defendants 2, 3, and 4, Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Joint Residence), and Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Joint Intrusion), revoked the accusation at the Jeonju Regional Employment and Labor Office in Gwangju, which has filed an accusation against the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the actual escape was not yet made; damage to Defendant 3’s violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (collectively Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily Bodily In

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

Judges Kim Sung-sung