All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. It is unreasonable to apply the Supreme Court precedents to a crime of interference with the operation of a safety protection facility as to the main reason for appeal by analogy to the operation of an essential business.

In addition, the defendants did not take all necessary safety measures in advance, and the above crime is an abstract dangerous crime that does not require any concrete danger, so long as the defendants leave their workplace without permission, the above crime is committed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on a different premise is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. First of all, the prosecutor asserts that the Supreme Court precedents referred by the court below are unfair to apply to this case. However, considering the same or similarity of the provisions of each law, legislative intent, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Supreme Court precedents concerning interference with operation of safety protection facilities can be applied by analogy to interference with essential maintenance business.

As seen above, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below based on the legal principles and circumstances properly mentioned in the court below, i.e., ① the core of the prosecutor’s assertion, purport that the act of violating the decision on the essential business itself itself is subject to punishment because it causes abstract risks, but Article 42-2(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act only provides that a strike cannot be deemed to suspend, discontinue, or obstruct the legitimate maintenance and operation of the essential business, and is punished in the event of the violation, and there is no provision punishing the act of violating the decision on the essential business itself. There may be cases where the contents of the decision on the essential business exceed the minimum maintenance and operation of the essential business, or where the industrial action violates the specific contents of the decision on the essential business, but suspends, discontinues, or interferes with the legitimate maintenance and operation