Defendant

A Imprisonment for eight months, Defendant B, C, and D shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

except that from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A All the above union members are the Fno-M General, the vice-general of the dispute, the defendant C, the vice-director of the organization, the defendant D, the vice-director of the organization, the defendant D, the head of the site group, the chairperson of the planning division, the J, the vice-director of the welfare division, the K, the vice-director of the welfare division, and the M and N are all the above union members.

G was in the negotiation period from April 2013, when the head of the personnel management headquarters had been in the negotiation period, on June 19, 2013, a notice was posted in the internal network of the company "P" by the director of the personnel management headquarters that "P", which is likely to affect the wage negotiation as a title, and accordingly, a notice was requested to delete the notice on the private side, but not accepted, and a notice was re-published to the same purport on the 24th of the same month.

Accordingly, the Defendants and the above labor union members determined that they were the head of the personnel management headquarters, disregarding the labor union, and decided to call or call the head of the personnel management headquarters. On June 25, 2013, the Defendants and the above labor union members sought to the office of the head of the personnel management headquarters around 09:15.

1. The Defendants in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc., damage, etc.) found the office of the head of the personnel management headquarters on June 25, 2013 at Q in the second floor of the main building of the G Co., Ltd. located in Q in the military, Sinsan-si. However, the personnel management chief of the personnel management headquarters was absent, and Defendant A was unable to cast off as much as he found to be able to make a claim even if the head of the personnel management headquarters was absent. Thus, the Defendants stated to the effect that “the head of the personnel management headquarters was unable to cut off the books, etc. for the purpose of an indication of a claim, and carried out the office supplies on his hand by hand.

The Defendants damaged computers, telephone, book glass, and the wall surface of office on the books located in the above office, and put the book, chair, composite equipment, etc. on the first floor of this Sub-section.

At around 13:15 on the same day, there have been two piracys, which are dangerous objects in Defendant B’s workplace, in fact that the above behavior had been mobilized by public authorities in the private sector.