2017 Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor (as to the defendant)

Law Firm Inn (for all the defendants):

Attorney Kim Jong-Un et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Cheongju District Court Decision 2016No1005 Decided January 26, 2017

July 29, 2020

All appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds for appeal are determined.

1. A labor union’s activities are based on the worker’s freedom of association or three labor rights, and thus, a civil and criminal exemption is granted to legitimate acts in order to achieve the purpose prescribed in Article 1 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”). In order to deem the activities of a labor union justifiable, the activities of a labor union may be deemed to be activities of a labor union by nature of the act, or an implied authorization or approval of a labor union may be deemed to have been granted from the perspective of the principal agent. Second, in order to maintain and improve the working conditions and improve the worker’s economic status in terms of the objective, and to strengthen the unity of workers necessary and necessary to promote the maintenance and improvement of their working conditions and the improvement of the worker’s economic status;

The requirements for time, means, methods, etc. should be an act that is a separate provision in the rules of employment or collective agreement in terms of time, or for non-working hours, except where there is a custom or consent of the employer. Fourth, in terms of the means and method, the requirements for time, method, etc. should be determined based on the user’s right to manage facilities, and should be determined based on the method of violence, destruction, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do304, Apr. 10, 1992). From among these issues, the requirements for time, method, etc. should be determined based on any criteria for determining legitimacy in the event of this conflict, such as the union’s right to command its labor, the necessity and urgency of the union’s activities, the specific form and degree of each act conducted through union activities, whether the user’s right to command and manage facilities, etc., infringed upon the user’s right to command, and other various circumstances of labor relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do9494.

2. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendants were incorporated into the ○○ Factory for the purpose of collecting evidence of violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act (hereinafter referred to as “the factory in this case”) as part of the part belonging to the non-party 1 trade union (hereinafter referred to as “non-party 1 trade union”), and even before that, non-party 1's executive officers and employees belonging to the non-party 1'AA' branch visited the factory in this case for the same purpose without any specific control by the manager. The defendants merely examined the situation of the factory in this case without operating the facilities and equipment of the factory in this case, and found the defendant not guilty of the acts of assaulting and threatening the non-party 2 on the part of the non-party 1 trade union (hereinafter referred to as “non-party 2 trade union”). In light of the fact that the defendant did not have any essential influence on the part of the non-indicted 2's activities in this case, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's act of maintaining or threatening the labor condition of the company's.

Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the Defendants by deeming the Defendants’ act indicated in the facts charged as a justifiable act to have not resulted in a substantial impediment to the management of enterprises, performance of duties, facility management, etc., due to the Defendant’s union activities as above. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legitimacy of the activities of an industrial trade union, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Park Jung-hwa

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Jong-soo