A. Whether the delivery of money or valuables to the parties in dispute, the amount or volume of which is not specified, constitutes a third-party intervention under Article 13-2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act (negative)

B. Whether Article 13-2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act is unconstitutional (negative)

A. In light of the purport of Article 13-2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, a third party, who is not a party to a labor-management relationship, seeks to prevent a dispute from hindering the independent resolution of a dispute between the parties by means of the operation, inciting or obstructing of the parties to the dispute, or by expanding, suppressing, suppressing, or suppressing, or suspending, etc., and the requirement for the intervention is demanding that the parties concerned operate, instigate, interfere with, or affect the industrial action as to the industrial action. In light of the fact that the above provision prohibited "inception" refers to an objective and specific act of participating in the industrial action that may affect the industrial action by means of steering, inciting, obstructing, or obstructing the parties to the dispute, or by any other similar means. Thus, it cannot be concluded that it constitutes an act of participating in the industrial action without specifying the amount or quantity to the parties to the dispute, and whether it constitutes an act of participating in the industrial action shall be determined in consideration of the amount or quantity of money or other general circumstances.

B. The provision prohibiting the third party intervention under Article 13-2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act does not constitute an unconstitutional provision that infringes on the essential contents of the three basic labor rights and freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution, or is contrary to the principle of equality and the principle of no punishment without law.

(b)Articles 11, 12, 21, and 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea;

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee In-bok

Busan High Court Decision 89No723 delivered on November 8, 1989

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

1. We examine the Defendant’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 1.

On March 24, 1983. 18: 40-19: The court below held 10 or more workers belonging to the 5th National Assembly and held 8,00 jumnasium and 89 jumnasium on the 19th National Assembly and held 5th National Assembly and held 100 jumnasium and held 90 jumnasium and held 100 jumsium and held 90 jumnasium and held 90 jumnasium and held 5th National Assembly and held 9th National Assembly and held 10th National Assembly and held 9th National Assembly and held 9th National Assembly and held 10th National Assembly and held 9th National Assembly and held 9th National Assembly and held 10th National Assembly and held 9th National Assembly and Demonstration, respectively, a collective violence, destruction, fire prevention, etc.

The issue is that the defendant only attended each of the above competitions and did not hold a fact, but the defendant's punishment as the organizer of each of the above competitions is recognized without evidence and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the organizer's legal principles under the above law. However, according to the records of the prosecutor's investigation, the defendant, when the prosecutor's investigation is conducted, led to the confession of the fact that the defendant, as the chairperson, independently or jointly with the students of the Changwon University, and the authenticity of the above confession is supported by other evidence employed by the court of first instance. And according to each evidence of the first instance, the organizer, the organizer, was planned to go in advance to the violent demonstration, such as covering the flame disease, etc. prepared in advance by the participants of each of the above assemblies after the above assemblies, and therefore, Article 22 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that the representative shall be considered as the organizer in the application of the penal provisions of this Act, and therefore, the court below's application of the penal provisions of this Act is justified and without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3.

(1) In light of the legislative purpose of the Labor Dispute Adjustment Act, the interpretation of the regulations governing labor disputes between labor and management, such as the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, is to promote the prevention and resolution of disputes through the fair mediation of labor relations, not only the maintenance of equity and fairness between labor and management, but also the restriction or prohibition provisions shall be strictly interpreted and shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted.

Article 13-2 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act prohibits any third party intervention by prescribing that no one shall operate, instigate or interfere with the parties concerned or intervene with the purpose of affecting the labor dispute except for workers who have a direct labor relation, or those who have a legitimate authority pursuant to the labor union, employer, or other laws and regulations.

The concept of intervention prohibited by the above provision itself is abstract and broad concept of action. However, the legislative intent of this provision is to prevent a third party, who is not a party to a labor-management relationship, from impeding the autonomous resolution of a dispute, such as inducing a dispute, or expanding, stimulating, suppressing, or suppressing or suspending a dispute by means of steering, inciting, obstructing, or obstructing the parties concerned, and in light of the fact that the requirement for intervention requires that the parties concerned to an industrial action shall operate, instigate, interfere with, or affect the industrial action, the intervention prohibited by the above provision shall be deemed to mean an objective and specific act of involvement that may affect an industrial action by means of steering, instigating, interfering with, or any other similar means.

(2) In this case, the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court which held that the defendant, as a third party, instigated many union members, such as the Deputy Chief of the Company and Vice Chief of the Union and Vice Chief of the company, in the same place between April 12:30 of the same year and April 18:00, in order to encourage them to make a strong strike by transmitting the amount of dispute fund and if they were to the union members, etc. of the above company in agriculture for the purpose of affecting the strike and the industrial action of the above company in the process of a lock-out, on March 1989, with the aim of influencing the industrial action of the above company in the process of a lock-out.

First of all, with respect to the above facts, the summary of the facts in this holding is that the defendant delivered the amount to the above company labor union members at the time and place of the judgment above, and led them to a strong strike. However, even upon examining the record, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant made any speech or behavior leading to a strong strike other than delivering money to the said company labor union members at the time and place of the judgment above. Thus, the court below held that the defendant's act of leading the perpetrator who delivered the money to the above company was an act of inducing the strong strike.

However, it cannot be readily concluded that only delivery of money or other valuables to the disputing parties of which amount or quantity is not specified, and whether the act of intervention constitutes an act of intervention is to be determined by taking into account the amount, quantity, and other circumstances of the money or valuables in question. However, the court below held that the act of intervention is in conformity with the amount or quantity of the money or valuables in question, without specifying the amount or quantity at all, and there is no evidence to verify whether the substitute defendant delivered money at the same time and place as in the above decision, even after examining the record.

Of course, the delivery of money and valuables on the dispute site by the defendant, who is the president of the Egymanian, is considered to bring about the encouragement of dispute workers. However, as seen earlier, the third party intervention prohibited by the Labor Dispute Mediation Act refers to an objective and specific involvement that may affect industrial actions, and thus, if no other speech and behavior are made except for delivery of money and valuables the amount or quantity of which are not verified, it would be interpreted that the defendant would have a high influence on the union members, thereby unfairly expanding the concept of intervention.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prohibition of third party intervention under the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In light of the records, the court below's determination that recognized the above facts is acceptable, and even if the intervention of the union which is the union federation or the industrial associated organization to which the union was a member of the union is allowed pursuant to the proviso of Article 13-2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, it is obvious that the defendant did not act on behalf of the Korean Metal Trade Union, and therefore, it is obvious that the defendant did not act on behalf of the Korean Metal Trade Union, and therefore, the defendant's act is dismissed in accordance with the above proviso.

(3) The prohibition of intervention by the third party under Article 13-2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, which is discussed above, is argued to be unconstitutional. However, the above provision does not constitute a violation of the essential contents of the three labor rights and freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution or a violation of the principle of equality and the principle of no punishment without law. (In this regard, the Constitutional Court has also decided that the above provision is not unconstitutional). It cannot be discussed.

4. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained for the reasons stated in the judgment as to the above grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3. Since the court below imposed a single punishment by treating the above violation of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act and the above violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act as concurrent crimes, it shall be reversed and remanded in full. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)