2016No2087 (a) Interference with business

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

Prosecutor

Kim Dong-dong (prosecutions) and Park Jin (Trial)

Law Firm D (For the defendant)

Attorney E in charge

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Kadan2810 Decided June 2, 2016

September 30, 2016

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles)

The defendants' response room inside the officer's room (hereinafter referred to as the " response room in this case") is limited to a specific independent business space of the non-open structure used by the officers or non-members of the non-members of the non-affiliated organization. In the related civil cases, the legitimacy of the act of occupation is distinguished from the street in front of the officer's room. In addition, the defendants occupy a facility in the form of 60 members of the non-member of the non-member of the union in the form of moving-in and moving-in in the response room and moving-in in the response room. Accordingly, the defendants' act was interfered with the actual impossibility of performing their duties. Accordingly, although the defendants' act cannot be viewed as a legitimate industrial action, the first instance court regarded the "in front of the response room in this case and the above "executive room in this case" as the same place, the purpose, method, and attitude of the strike in this case, and found the defendants not guilty. In so doing, the judgment of the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion.

2. Determination

The first instance court acknowledged facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and found that the strike conducted by the Korea Press Labor Relations Commission branch, including the Defendants, constitutes a legitimate industrial action. As long as the industrial action by the above workers is justifiable, the Defendants’ respective acts committed within the scope of the industrial action as a legitimate act falling under Article 20 of the Criminal Act is dismissed, and thus, the illegality of each of the instant actions by the Defendants is recognized. Thus, each of the instant facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a legitimate act, and thus, acquitted the Defendants pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that each of the instant facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence submitted in the first instance, a thorough examination is conducted, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance are acceptable to determine the acquittal of the charged facts of this case based on the recognition and judgment of the above facts, and there is no violation of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor. Otherwise, there is no new evidence to support the prosecutor’s assertion in the grounds for appeal. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is not acceptable.

① On the 17th floor of F building, both of the corridors have three elevators, and the space of the elevator front corridor is relatively narrow to about 10 square meters. At the end of the corridor, there is a glass door allowing large access to the membership identification device, and there is a glass door inside the executive room to the right side of the Roman, and the above door opened a door while the person in charge of security service manages the key and leaves the door while on duty hours.

② The officer room is located in front of the instant response room in a size of about 40 square meters, and, based on the access room in the instant case, the audit room, the regular director room, the executive meeting room, the president room, and the meeting room are located. The access room in the instant case means a space where the officers have access to their room or the meeting room, or employees or customers who are not officers have access to the officer's room or the meeting room are used at the time of waiting the officer's waiting, and the prior meaning of "rovi" means a broad space where the officers or employees who are not officers have access to the meeting room, passage, etc. are combined.

The place where the main occupation and farming of workers, including the Defendants, was conducted is the contact room of this case.

④ Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, the Defendants’ “in front of the officer’s office” and the contact room of the instant case appears to be the same place, as stated in the relevant civil case where the Defendants’ favorable judgment became final and conclusive, based on the premise that the industrial action

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since all appeals against the defendants by the prosecutor are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the Gimsung

Judge Lee Sang-hoon

Judge Span-hee