All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the remaining Defendants except Defendant I and J

A. As to Defendant E, G, H, L, R, S, U,V, W, and X’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the obstruction of business due to the part of strike prior to the occupation of the strike, and the assertion of misconception of facts, the strike as a strike includes the elements that can be seen as a force in the crime of interference with business by exercising the power of the worker’s collective suspension of labor supply to accomplish the claim with pressure on the employer.

However, in principle, workers have the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and such strike does not always meet the elements for the crime of interference with business. In light of the situation and circumstances before and after, it is deemed that the employer’s free will on the continuation of business can be deemed to be under the suppression of the employer’s free will on the continuation of business due to the fact that the refusal of collective labor provision may be under the influence of force and constitutes the crime of interference with business.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do482 Decided March 17, 201). Meanwhile, whether to implement corporate restructuring, such as layoff or corporate consolidation, belongs to the high-level managerial decision of the management body and cannot be subject to collective bargaining as a matter of principle, and thus, if a trade union went into industrial action to substantially oppose the implementation thereof, barring special circumstances, such as the implementation of urgent managerial needs or reasonable reasons.