2017 Maz. 22, 2017 Maz. 45 (Joint)

1. A;

2. B

3. C

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11. K;

12. L.

13. M;

For the purpose of the public trial, the prosecution shall be held without prosecution.

Attorney N (for all the defendants)

August 18, 2017

Defendant A, B, D, E, and I shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,00,00,00 for each of them, Defendant C, F, G, H, and J shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,50,000 for each of them, Defendant K, L, and M shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,00,00 for each of them.

If the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, each of the above fines of KRW 100,000 was converted into one day, the Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant C’s charge of interfering with business of the victim is acquitted.

The summary of the acquittal part in the judgment against Defendant C shall be publicly notified.

Criminal facts

“2017 Fixed 22 (Defendant A, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant J, Defendant J, Defendant K, and Defendant K)

The Defendants and the victims were members of the Qu Port Trade Union affiliated with P, and the victims submitted a petition to an investigation agency for embezzlement, etc. to the executive department and cargo unloading company, including the chairperson of the preceding port transportation union, etc., and the investigation was initiated, the conflict between the Defendants and the victims, who were the opposite members of the enforcement department of the said port transportation union, was formed.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

On May 6, 2016, the Defendants reported that R, victim S, and victim T will work at the above office at the entrance of the above QW trade union office, and prevented the victims, and Defendant A sent away from the victims, and Defendant A sent the victims a large interest of "I am unable to find out any material evidence, why I am flick, you am flick, and you am am back with the victim's chest," and Defendant G sent the victims "I am back to the company if I am out of the company," and the victims "I am back with the victim's chest, I d, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant H, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant J, and Defendant K worked at the office to prevent the victims from raising their surroundingss, thereby obstructing the victims from using them to work at the above office by force.

Ultimately, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the attending work of the victims by force.

2. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant H, and Defendant I

On June 16, 2016, around 06:40, the Defendants reported the victim's O to work in the above office, and obstructed the victim's work, and Defendant A expressed to the victim that "the victim "the victim she had worked at the above office", "the victim's chest was pushed off with the victim's chest, and Defendant E "the victim she had worked at the workplace". Defendant G stated that "the victim would have worked at the workplace if she want to her, she will do so, and she will do so," and Defendant H expressed that "the victim will she will she attend the above office" and "the victim will not she will she attend the above office" and "the victim will she will interfere with the victim's her body and will not interfere with the victim's work" and "the victim's will to she will interfere with the victim's work at the workplace" and "the victim's she will not she will see the victim's she will to attend the above office."

“2017 Fixed 45 (Defendant A, B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant I, Defendant J, Defendant L, and Defendant M)

The Defendants were members of the Qu Port Trade Union affiliated with P, and the victims submitted a petition to an investigation agency for embezzlement, etc. against the executive department and the shipper of the preceding port transportation union, including the chairperson of the said port transportation union, to the investigation agency, and the investigation was initiated, the conflict between the Defendants, who are the members of the enforcement department of the said port transportation union, and the victims who are the opposite union members, were formed

3. Defendants’ interference with the Defendants’ work on September 6, 2016.

피고인들은 2016. 9. 6. 06:20경 위 Q항운노동조합 사무실 앞 노상에서 피해자들이 위 사무실에 출근하는 것을 보고 화가 나 피해자들을 가로막고 피고인 C는 피해자들에게 "아야, 염병하지 말고 얼른 가, 염병하네, 니미 씹할놈"이라고 욕설을 하고, 피고인 J은 피해자들에게 "가, 야 씹할놈아, 생전 오도 안한 놈이 뭔 지랄이여, 뭔 짓거리 여"라고 욕설을 하고, 피고인 L은 피해자들에게 "다른, 다른 사람은 몰라도 너는 새끼 야, 입을 딱 찢어버려, 입을 쫙 찢어불란께, 씹할놈이"라고 욕설을 하고, 피고인 M은 피해자들에게 "느그는 개만도 못해, 느그는 개만도 못하다고"라고 욕설을 하고, 이에 합세하여 피고인 B, 피고인 I, 피고인 D, 피고인 A, 피고인 E은 피해자들에게 욕설을 하면서 피해자들의 주변을 둘러싸고 험악한 인상을 쓰면서 마치 피해자들의 신체에 위해를 가할 것처럼 위세를 부리면서 피해자들이 위 사무실에 출근을 하지 못하도록 함으로써 위력으로 피해자들의 조합 출근 업무를 방해하였다.

4. Defendants’ interference with the Defendants’ work on September 8, 2016.

On September 8, 2016, at least 06:30, the Defendants reported the victims to work in the above office, and prevented them from leaving the office, and Defendant A expressed to the victims “I have been doing so, I have been doing so,” and Defendant C expressed to the victims “I have been doing so, I have been doing so,” and Defendant C expressed to the victims “I have expressed to the victims “I have been doing so, I have been doing so,” and Defendant J expressed to the victims “I have been satisfying, so I have been satching, so I have been satching,” and Defendant D expressed to the victims “I have been able to get off the victims and have been satched as her mother, who will have been satfyed, and have been satched, who will not have been satched, and have been satisfying the victims’ body by force during their work to prevent them from going to the above victims’ office.”

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant 2017 fixed-term 22]

1. Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, Defendant G, Defendant H, Defendant I, Defendant J, and Defendant K’s respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness R, T, S, andO;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 28 through 30 in list of evidence);

1. Recording notes (6. 16.) and four CDs submitted by complainants;

[Defendant-Appellee 2017 fixed 45]

1. The respective legal statements of Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant I, Defendant J, Defendant L, and Defendant M

1. Each legal statement of the witness R, T and S;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 11, 22 of the evidence list);

1. Recording records;

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Code; Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1. The assertion;

(a) The act of attendance at work does not constitute those protected by the crime of interference with business;

B. The victim U, T, and S did not appear to work in Qport trade union (hereinafter “port trade union”) but merely appeared in the port trade union office to instigate its members, and it cannot be viewed as the attendance at work.

C. The regulations on the operation of the port liaison office in the port transportation union provide that a worker shall not work on the same day when the worker is dismissed even one minute, and shall return home immediately after absence. The victim shall work up to 06:00 on the day of the instant case, while the worker is on duty (one-time union), the worker cannot work at around 06:40. Thus, even if the victim was unable to enter the office, the victim cannot be deemed to interfere with the victim's work.

2. Determination

(a) Whether the act of attendance constitutes a job protected in the crime of failing to perform duties;

In the crime of interference with business under Article 314 of the Criminal Act, the term "business" refers to a business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of a job or social status, and the business or business mentioned in this context is sufficient if it is based on a social status (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1589, Oct. 12, 1995). According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the victims are acknowledged to have been members of the port transportation union who work and maintain their livelihood in the port transportation union. Thus, the victims' attendance at the port transportation union office shall be deemed to have continuously engaged in the business based on the status of the members of the port transportation union, and therefore, it constitutes a business protected by the crime of interference with business.

(b) Whether victims R, T, and S are in attendance;

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court, namely, ① the victims were in the position of the victims at the time of their attendance and did not find any new employment at any other place; ② the victims were in the situation where they continued to work at the time of their arrival to maintain their livelihood; ② the victims continued to work at the time of their arrival from the investigative agency to the court; ③ the victims were in a relatively consistent manner at the time of their arrival; ③ the victims were ordinarily in attendance at the time of their attendance; ④ the victims were in attendance at the time of their attendance at the time of their attendance, but the victims did not appear to have been in the position of the victims at the time of their attendance. However, the victims appeared to have been unable to take work from the workers at the time of their attendance at the time of their attendance. However, the victims did not appear to have been under the situation where the victims were forced to stop their attendance at the time of their attendance at the time of their attendance at the time of their attendance, and it appears to have not been in conflict with the situation at the time of their attendance.

C. Part concerning interference with business with victimO

According to the evidence adopted by the court and examined by this court, ① the hours of attendance of a port union member is set at 06:00 for a person on duty and 07:00 for a person on duty, and 07:0 for a person on duty, the hours of attendance of a person on duty are set at 06:0,00 for a person on duty, and the members who were dismissed under the regulations on the regulations on the regulations on the operation of a port union in the port union in the port union in this case are voluntarily returned to Korea, and immediately returned to Korea when a person is found, ② the victim was assigned to a person on duty at 06:40, and ③ the victim was absent from office, ③ the fact that he was the person on duty who was assigned to the witness at the time of this case was called “the victim’s absence from office”, and in light of this, the defendant

However, "business" subject to protection under the Criminal Act refers to work or business that is continuously or continuously engaged in, and is worth protecting from infringement by another person's unlawful act. It does not necessarily require contract or administrative act, etc. which is the basis of such business to be lawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1747, Apr. 11, 2003). Whether the business is legally worthy of protection is determined depending on whether the business is actually peaceful and becomes the basis of social activities. Even if there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencement or performance of such business, the degree of such defects does not reach society (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do382, Mar. 3, 9). According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the victim's act cannot be seen as having reached the victim's duty to be protected by the victim's act of failing to properly recognize the fact that he was assigned to the supervisor on the day of this case, and the victim's act cannot be seen as having reached the victim's duty to attend the work.

D. Therefore, the Defendants and the defense counsel’s above assertion shall not be accepted.

The part not guilty (Defendant C)

1. This part of the facts charged

A, D, E, F, G, H, and I (hereinafter referred to as "A, etc.") and victim 0 around June 16, 2016, around 06:40, at the entrance of the above QW transport trade union office, expressed that the victim 1 will attend the above office, and that "A will prevent the victim from working at the above office," and "I will brue the victim's chest with his hand," "I will see whether the victim would have been working at the assigned office," "I will prevent the victim from working at the above office," and "I will brue the victim's body," "I will brue the victim," "I will brue the victim's body," and "I will brue the victim," "I will brue the victim's body," and "I will brue the victim's brue," and "I will brue the victim's members," and "I will fran the victim's body,".

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with A, etc. to interfere with the victim's attending work.

2. Determination

The Defendant, in collusion with A, etc. at the time of the instant case, asserts that there was no fact to block the victim, and there is a victim’s statement, police statement, record book (6. 16. 16. 16. 16. 6. 16. 16.) and CD submission (record file) as evidence that seem to correspond to the facts charged in this part.

그런데 이 법원이 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 피해자는 고소장 및 경찰 조사에서 A 등의 업무방해 행위에 대하여는 비교적 상세하게 진술한 반면, 피고인도 A 등과 피해자의 앞을 가로막았다고만 진술하고 있을 뿐 피고인의 행위에 대하여 구체적으로 진술하지 않았고, 이 법정에서 당시 피고인이 현장에 있었는지, 피고인이 피해자에게 욕설을 하였는지에 대하여 잘 기억이 나지 않는다고 진술한 점, ② 비록 이 사건 당시 녹취파일에 따라 작성된 녹취서에는 피고인이 당시 "씨발놈, ..... 줬잖아." "어. 그래”라고 말한 것으로 기재되어 있기는 하나, 피고인은 경찰 조사에서 당시 식당에 있다가 시끄러운 소리가 나서 현장에 왔으나, 다른 사람들이 하는 이야기만 듣고 있었고 특별히 말한 사실은 없으며, 위 녹취파일의 음성이 자신의 음성인지는 잘 모르겠다는 취지로 진술하였고, 위 녹취파일은 총 8분 55초 동안의 대화 내용이 녹음되어 있는데, 피고인이 말한 것으로 특정된 부분은 위 부분뿐이며, 위 부분 또한 A 등 다수의 조합원들이 모여서 피해자를 향해 고성을 지르고 시끄럽게 하고 있던 상황에서 녹음된 부분으로만 피고인이 피해자를 상대로 한 그와 같은 말을 하였다고 단정하기도 어려운 점(이 부분 내용은 피고인의 공소사실로 적시되지도 않았다), ③ 이 사건 당시 항운노조 위원장에 대한 피해자 측 조합원의 진정으로 인한 수사가 진행되고 있었던 것으로 보이고, 그로 인하여 피해자가 피고인 및 A 등으로부터 집단 따돌림을 당하는 등 서로 적대적인 관계에 있었던 것으로 보이는바, 그와 같은 상황에서 피해자가 당시 현장에 있던 피고인도 A 등과 공모하여 자신을 출근을 막으려고 하였다고 오인하였을 가능성을 배제할 수 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 앞서 본 각 증거들만으로 피고인이 A 등과 공모하여 피해자의 앞을 가로막는 방법으로 피해자의 출근 업무를 방해하였다고 단정하기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is sentenced to innocence, and the summary of the verdict of the defendant is publicly notified pursuant to the main sentence of Article 58(2)

Judges Lee Jae-chul