The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A, Defendant B, D, and H Co., Ltd. (the grounds therefor) are not guilty.

I. Summary of reasons for appeal

1. Defendants

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: Defendant A: Violation of the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Participation and Cooperation (Article 4 of the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Participation and Cooperation, excluding the remainder of the guilty facts in the case of 2013 High Order 1867). In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehension of legal principles as delineated

Defendant

B, C, D, E, F, G, and H Co., Ltd.: Defendant C, except for the remainder of the guilty charges except for the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Participation and Cooperation (Article 4 of the Act on the Promotion of Workers’ Participation and Cooperation (Article 2013 Highest 1867) as indicated in the lower judgment, and each guilty charge against the remaining Defendants, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine as delineated below.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and two million won of fine), (two years of probation and two years of community service order in each of August, and two years of probation and 120 hours of community service order), (2 years of probation and one million won of fine in six months of imprisonment, and 80 hours of community service order), (2 years of probation and 1 million won of community service order, and two million won of fine in each of June), (2 million won of fine: Defendant F), (1.5 million won of each of Defendant E and G), and (15 million won of fine: Defendant Company) are too unreasonable.

2. The part of the lower judgment’s acquittal of Defendant A, B, D, and H Co., Ltd. by the public prosecutor is erroneous in misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles as delineated below.

Ⅱ. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

1. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Co., Ltd.”); H U branch HU branch in the Republic of Korea affiliated with the National Democratic Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as “U branch”); and the national metal trade union HW branch HW branch in the Daejeon Chungcheongbuk-do, Daejeon (hereinafter referred to as “W branch; hereinafter referred to as “W branch”); and the said two branches are combined on January 13, 2010.