The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4.5 million, and Defendant B shall be punished.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the following grounds, which found the Defendants guilty of each fact, by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

The argument is asserted.

1) On February 17, 2014 for Defendant A, B, C, D, and E, the obstruction of business on March 4, 2014 to Defendant A, B, E, F, G, I, and J, and the obstruction of business on March 13, 2014 to Defendant C, G,K, P, R, and S [Article 1, 2, and 7 of the judgment] Korea Railroad Corporation attempted to transfer the cargo departure and inspection business on February 17, 2014 to the transport service personnel by unilaterally transferring the cargo departure and inspection business of the train in charge of the existing vehicle manager to the transport service personnel.

At the time of the instant case, the cargo train inspection work was still conducted by the vehicle manager.

The above Defendants, a member of the Korean Railroad Trade Union, committed this case in the course of protesting to the City/Do to transfer the cargo train inspection service of the Korean Railroad Corporation.

It is not only a violation of the labor-management agreement but also an unfair measure that seriously threatens the safety of railroads and the safety of life of workers.

Therefore, since the cargo train inspection service provider, other than the cargo manager, does not fall under the duty of protection under the Criminal Act, the act of the above defendants as stated in each of the above decisions does not interfere with the duty and therefore does not constitute a crime of interference with the duty.

Even if so, the above Defendants committed acts as stated in the above holding in order to protect the legitimate departure inspection work of the vehicle manager, and this constitutes a legitimate act, and thus, the illegality is dismissed.

2) As to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint injury) against Defendant A and B and the violation of the Railroad Safety Act on March 4, 2014 (Article 3 of the judgment).