Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

Punishment of the crime

Defendants are employees of E, a subcontractor, the lower company in the category of D household electric services, and are members of the headquarters nationwide metal labor union F Branch, and Defendant A among them was in charge of the headquarters from April 2016 to September 2016.

around July 4, 2016, the Defendants tried to hold a meeting to demand the treatment of A/S Articles and the work environment improvement before all members belonging to the above sub-chapter 11 and two members belonging to the sub-chapter 11 of the above sub-chapter 1 and the H-gu sub-chapter 2 of the above sub-chapter Ga during the Ansan-si period. However, as the Defendants were unable to hold a meeting due to rain, they were unable to hold a meeting. On the same day, around 14:14 of the same day, they moved to the Fmar village center located on the second floor of the above building.

Accordingly, the victim I, who is the above center security team leader, demanded the defendant A and B to leave from around 14:14 on the same day, around 14:16 on the same day, around 14:23, around 14:24, around 14:29, and each defendant A to leave the "disorder to interfere with the business" at around 14:29, and the victim A, who is the above center security team leader, demanded the defendant A and C to leave again on around 15:03 on the same day, the defendants failed to comply with the request.

As a result, the Defendants did not comply with the demand of the victims to leave the Fyeong Village Center managed by the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made to K, J and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (request for the eviction of the manager of Pyeongtaek Village Center);

1. Article 2 (2) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 319 (2) and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the attraction of a workhouse;

1. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the judgment on the assertion that the act of a legitimate dispute under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was an act of the provisional payment order constitutes an act of legitimate dispute, but this court is legitimate.