Matters to be particularly considered when determining whether a trade union’s union’s activities are legitimate and constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act / Matters to be particularly considered when determining whether the requirements, means, methods, etc. are met among the above requirements

A trade union’s activities are based on the workers’ freedom of association or the three labor rights (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) and, in order to achieve the purpose of Article 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), a legitimate act is exempt from civil or criminal liability (Article 4 of the Trade Union Act, and Article 20 of the Criminal Act). If a trade union’s activities are justifiable, it should be deemed that the activities of the trade union can be seen as activities of the trade union, or implied authorization or approval from the nature of the act in the nature of the first principal, or that the trade union has been obtained. Second, in order to maintain and improve the working conditions and improve the workers’ economic status in terms of the objective, it shall be necessary and helpful for the strengthening of the unity of workers, and it shall be carried out outside working hours in principle except as otherwise permitted by the rules of employment or collective agreement in terms of the third time, or if there is any custom or employer’s consent. Fourth, in terms of the means and methods, a trade union’s activities should conform

Among them, the requirements for timing, means, methods, etc. are to determine the legitimacy of a trade association’s activities, the right to command labor, the right to manage facilities, etc., on any basis of which the legitimacy is determined. Thus, the determination of whether the above requirements are met should be made from a substantive perspective by objectively comparing and balancing the conflicting values by taking into account the necessity and urgency of the trade association’s activities, the details and specific mode of the individual act conducted through the trade association’s activities, the infringement of the employer’

Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 1 and 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Article 20 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 91Do3044 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1639) Supreme Court Decision 93Do613 delivered on February 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1137), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4422 delivered on February 17, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1417), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5496 delivered on March 14, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1634)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Law Firm Inn, Attorneys Kim Jong-Un et al.

Cheongju District Court Decision 2016No1005 decided January 26, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A trade union’s union’s activities are based on the workers’ freedom of association or the three labor rights, and thus, in order to achieve the purpose of Article 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), a civil or criminal exemption is granted to legitimate acts (Article 4 of the Trade Union Act, and Article 20 of the Criminal Act). To deem the trade union’s activities justifiable, it should be deemed that the activities of the trade union can be seen as the activities of the trade union or have obtained implied authorization or approval from the nature of the principal act in the context of the principal act, and that the activities can be deemed as necessary and helpful for the maintenance and improvement of the working conditions and the enhancement of workers’ economic status in the context of the second purpose, and it should be carried out outside working hours in principle except where there are separate permissible regulations in the rules of employment or collective agreement in terms of time or where there are practices or consent from the employer. Fourth, in terms of the means and methods, a trade union’s activities should follow reasonable discipline or restrictions based on the right to manage the facilities in its workplace, and not follow acts of destruction (see, etc.

From this point of view, the requirements for timing, means, method, etc. are to determine the legitimacy of a cooperative’s activities and the employer’s right to command labor, right to manage facilities, etc. on a certain basis. Thus, the determination of whether the above requirements are met should be made from a substantive perspective by objectively comparing and balancing the conflicting values by taking into account the necessity and urgency of cooperative activities, the details and specific aspects of individual activities conducted through cooperative activities, the infringement of the employer’s right to command labor, right to manage facilities, etc., and other various circumstances in labor relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do613, Feb. 22, 1994; 94Da4422, Feb. 17, 1995; 94Nu5496, Mar. 14, 1995).

2. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below affirmed the part of the judgment below that found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the Defendants’ act of maintaining and improving the working conditions of the association was not necessary, in light of the following: (a) the executives belonging to the ○○ Factory for the purpose of supporting the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act by Nonindicted Co. 2 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”) as the executives belonging to Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 2”); (b) the executives belonging to the ○○ Factory for the purpose of collecting evidence of the violation of the Industrial Safety and Health Act; and (c) the executives belonging to Nonindicted Co. 1’s △△△△△△△△△△ Group visited the factory for the same purpose; (d) the Defendants visited the factory of this case without operating the facilities and equipment of the factory of this case; and (e) the hours were 30 to 40 minutes; and (e) the Defendants did not use force or force on the part of Nonindicted Co. 2 in the process of this case.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants’ act indicated in the facts charged did not substantially interfere with the management of companies, performance of duties, facility management, etc., as seen above, by deeming the Defendants’ act as a justifiable act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legitimacy of the industrial trade union’s activities and the legitimate act under

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

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)