A. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion)

(b) Interference with business;

C. Violation of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

1. A.

2.(a) B

3.(a) C.

4.(a)(b) D.

5.(b) E

6.(a)F

7.(a) G.

8.(a) H

9.c) I

10.C. J

Appellate Line (Public Prosecution, Public Trial)

Law Firm K, Attorneys L

(for the purposes of Defendant D, E, F, G, and H)

Attorney M. (Defendant I and J)

February 15, 2012

Defendant A, B, E, F, G, and H are punished by a fine of KRW 1,00,00 for each of them, and Defendant C is punished by a fine of KRW 700,00,00 for each of them, Defendant D, I, and J shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,00,00 for each of them.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for a period of 50,000 won converted from one day to one day.

The order of provisional payment of an amount equivalent to each of the above fines against the Defendants. Of the facts charged against Defendant D, E, and F, the charge of obstruction of business shall be acquitted. The summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant D, E, and F shall be published, respectively.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant D, E, G, H, B, and C’s order to enter the above 6th of October 4, 2010, Defendant D violated the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion) by entering the company without permission was the chief executive officer of the NMM branch, P, Q, R’s chief executive officer, the Ministry of Culture and Sports, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Labor, and the NA’s 6th of the above 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 6th of the 0th of the 6th of the 6th of the 0th of the 0th of the 6th of the 0th of the 1st of the 1st of the 2.

2. Defendant J’s violation of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act due to Defendant J’s secondary labor acts is in the position to receive and decide the negotiations with the union, labor union members return to the union and management, and withdrawal of the lock-out from J, which is the final approving authority of the N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “N”), as the representative director of the N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “N”), and Defendant J was a general managing director who is in charge of labor, personnel affairs, etc., who is delegated the right to negotiate with the NJ to the managing director who is in charge of labor, personnel affairs, etc., and was in charge of Nb lock-out-related affairs under the responsibility of the said Defendant. The employer is prohibited from controlling or participating in the organization or operation of a trade union.

N company's side (hereinafter referred to as "N company's side") continued from June 25, 2010 to August 21, 2010, and continued to conduct a lock-out for all N agency members of N agency with N agency 07:00 copies on August 23, 2010.

A. After a lock-out on September 2010, 8, 23, the private side including the above Defendants controlled the company affairs by using the guard service staff to control the company affairs. On September 2010, 2010, only five union members were allowed to have access to the union affairs room by using the patrol staff.

B. After a lock-out on August 23, 2010, the Defendants, including the above Defendants, continued to verify their intent to return to work through telephone contact to individual union members (the former and current union members are not identified), around August 29, 2010, the direct chief of the union among union members was 24, September 36, 2010; the number of persons on September 36, 2010; the number of persons on September 45, 2010; the number of persons on September 45, 2010; the number of persons on September 45, 2010; the number of persons on September 45, 2010; the number of persons on September 27, 2010; the number of those persons on October 42, 2010; and the number of female workers on a mobile phone (excluding the number of female workers on a turnkey basis) were individually removed to return to the site, and the number of female workers on October 29, 2010.

C. On October 13, 2010, 2010, 2013, the NAD resigned at the special meeting of its members, including sub-president D, and on October 21, 2010, AB sub-president was elected through a special election of its sub-president. On November 26, 2010, the resolution on the withdrawal of metal labor union from the special meeting of its members was passed at the special meeting of its members, and on November 30, 2010, the structural change was made to the current NNA (not a superior organization) by passing the rules of the NA trade union from the special meeting of its members.

As a result, the above Defendants conspired to refuse to enter the labor union's office after a lock-out on August 23, 2010, followed the organization and operation of the labor union by inducing the excessive impact of the labor union organization by inducing the workers' organization of the labor union, such as refusing to enter the labor union's office after a lock-out, delaying negotiations, helping the return of the union members selectively return the union's mobile phone, collecting the mobile phone of the return union members, and allowing them to board and lodging in the company.

【One point in the market】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H

1. Legal statement of a witness AC and J;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of prosecution against H, C, B, and A (two investigative records each);

1. Each police interrogation protocol of Q,0, S, T, R, G, X, P.W, D, F, V, C, H, H, B, and A (each investigation record two rights);

1. Statement made by the police against AC (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2No more than 69 pages of investigation records);

1. A copy of the report of lock-out (in 2/11 pages of investigation records), a copy of the public announcement of lock-out (in 2/12 pages of investigation records), 1. Assembly photographs by date (in 2/13-68 pages of investigation records);

[The second point in the market]

1. Defendant I and J’s partial statement

1. Each suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution against I and J (each of the four investigative records);

1. Statements of partial prosecutorial statement concerning D (investigative records, five : 107 pages);

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol with regard to I (not more than three investigative records, not more than 456 pages, not more than five to not more than 78 pages of investigation records);

1. Each part of the police interrogation protocol against J (each investigation record three rights);

1. Each police statement of H and AD (three police records of each investigation);

1. A protocol of statement by some police officers against AE, AF, AC, G, AG, AH, W, AI, D, and AJ (three investigative records, respectively);

1. Investigation data (not more than 319 pages of the investigation records, such as the education schedule of the person to be returned);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

○ Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H: Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fines)

Defendant I and J: Article 90 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Attraction in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Ad hoc payment order:

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The acquittal portion

1. Facts charged;

○ Defendant D, E, and F’s illegal strike (hereinafter referred to as “N”) exported Brc products to be a domestic maximum manufacturer of Brck, which had a history of 57 years since its establishment in August 1953, and had a history of 57 years, to be the largest manufacturer of Brc products in Korea, including modern, climate vehicle, etc., Japan, the U.S., and Isari, and the sales in 2010 are approximately KRW 194 billion, operating income amounting to KRW 11 billion, and the head office is located in AA.

In order to be legitimate a trade union's industrial action, ① the principal agent shall be a person to act as a principal agent of collective bargaining, ② the purpose of the industrial action shall be to create a self-cadastral competition among the labor and management to improve working conditions. The third employer shall begin to act as a principal agent of collective bargaining in response to the specific demand for the improvement of workers' working conditions, and the method and method should be lawful. In addition, the industrial action shall not be in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes and other social order in terms of the purpose, method and procedure to be legitimate, and the industrial action shall not be in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes and other social order in terms of the purpose, method and procedure of the industrial action. Defendant D shall determine the legitimacy of the overall purpose of the industrial action, depending on whether the principal or genuine purpose of the industrial action is reasonable. Defendant D shall be the president of the N branch, P, the chief of the site, Q, the head of culture and sports division, Defendant E, the head of education and welfare division, Defendant F, S, the representative of the labor safety department, and the representative of the labor union.

On February 11, 2010, the Korean Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the "MMMMM") proposed a demand to ensure the number of full-time workers and their treatment to nine companies affiliated with the metal labor union U.S. branch, including the victim N, and demanded a special collective agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "special agreement"), but each company rejected it in accordance with the purpose of the amended Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Labor Relations Adjustment Act").

Since then, on March 3, 2010, the metal labor union U branch consulted with the special compromise but did not resolve it. The metal labor union U branch applied for mediation of dispute around May 18, 2010, and on May 27, 2010, the labor union U.S. branch decided that the labor union labor union U.S. will take part in the pro-con voting for industrial action against all union members of the metal labor union U.S. and trade with 87% affirmative votes.

On the other hand, in order to renew wages and collective agreements that end on or around March 31, 2010, the NJ started on March 30, 2010, and continued to hold seven supplementary negotiations without any one strike on or before May 11, 2010. On or around June 1, 2010, the NN has engaged in the strike related to the special compromise by the decision of the metal labor union U branch, and from June 25, 2010, the NN ("g") began to consult on the special compromise in advance with the NN ("gg") upon the transfer of the special power negotiating power of the metal labor union U branch.

A. On or after June 25, 2010, the 20th KMM 1: The 20th KM 1: The KM 2nd 2nd 7th 2nd 2010, and the KM 1st 2nd 7th 2nd 2nd 7th 2010, and the KM 2nd 8th 7th 2nd 7th 2nd 2010, the KM 1st 2nd 7th 2nd 2nd 7th 2010, and the KM 2nd 1st 7th 2nd 7th 2nd 2nd 7th 7th 2010, the KM 1st 2nd 2nd 7th 2nd 2nd 2nd 7th 2010, the KMM 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 2010.

B. After July 28, 2010, the 10th 20th 7th 2010 KM 2, the 10th 2nd 2nd 2nd 7th 2010 KM 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 201st 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 201st 2nd 1st 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 201st 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 1st 201st 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 201st 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd .

(c) Illegality of the N branch strike;

In full view of the above facts, it should be deemed that the primary purpose of the NN branch industrial action is to circumvent the problem of management right, and this is an illegal strike with the aim of strike in violation of the current law. In addition, the above Defendants interfered with the production of the victim company’s balke products, etc. for 215 hours a total of 58 days in total, thereby causing damage to the victim company (239,598,94 + total of 8,542,356,000 won from June 25, 2010 to August 21, 2010). Ultimately, the above Defendants conspired with0, P, Q, R, S, and T, and thereby interfered with the business of the victim company within the scope of the victim company by force from around 58 days to August 21, 2010.

2. Determination

As a matter of principle, an employee has the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea). As such, a strike as an industrial action does not always constitute the crime of interference with business, and it is reasonable to deem that the crime of interference with business is established only when it can be assessed that the employer’s free will to continue to engage in business may be pressured and confused because the refusal to provide collective labor constitutes “the foregoing power” (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do482, Mar. 17, 2011).

Therefore, according to the evidence submitted by the above Defendants, U.S. 2 had been trying to find out 0 U.S. 1 and 0 U.S. 2, 200 U.M. 1 and 0 U.M. 2, 200 U.M. 1 and 0 U.M. 2000.M. 2 were 0 U.M. 8 U.M. 1 and 0 U.M. 5 U.M. 2000.M. 208.M. 2000. 200.M. 1 and 5 U.M. 2000. 200. 8MMM 1 and 06. 200. 207MM 200. 207MM 1 and 5. 208MM 200. 207. 208MM 201.

According to this, it is difficult to view that the above strike made by Defendant D, E, and F has been conducted in a full time time when the company could not predict, resulting in serious confusion or enormous damage to the employer's business operation, and thus, the employer's free will about the continuation of business can not be deemed to be confused and confusion. Only the witness AC and J's respective legal statements (excluding the above adopted parts) are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment on this part against the above Defendants is publicly announced under Article 58(2)

Judges Kim Gi-tae

1) N holds 78.1% of the shares of AMF companies.