(a) Whether a group of certain members is exempt from criminal liability where an industrial action is brought in violation of the approval or instruction of the trade union;

(b) The case holding that it constitutes an act of intervention by a third party in a speech inciting a strike at an event at a place of business where there is no direct labor relationship;

A. Under the current law, an industrial action at least in a workplace organized by a trade union is required to be a trade union with the capacity to conduct collective bargaining or collective agreements in order to become a justifiable act for which the subject of the industrial action is exempt from criminal liability under Article 2 of the Trade Union Act, and a group of certain union members are engaged in industrial action without the approval of the trade union or against their instruction, criminal liability shall not be exempted

B. The case holding that if a person attending an event of a place of business having no direct labor relationship and made a speech to the effect that “the person withdrawing a dispute as a result of a extreme strike against the general workers,” the act constitutes a third party intervention in collective bargaining with the employer as stipulated in Article 12-2 of the Trade Union Act, which constitutes an act of inciting the parties concerned.

(a) Articles 2, 7(1), and 33 of the Trade Union Act; Article 20 of the Criminal Act; Article 12(1)b of the Trade Union Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 94Da4042 delivered on September 30, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2829). Supreme Court Decision 90Do357 delivered on May 15, 1990 (Gong1990, 1306) Decision 91Do324 delivered on May 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 1817), Supreme Court Decision 90Do2529 delivered on January 25, 1993 (Gong1991, 900), Supreme Court Decision 90Do450 delivered on January 29, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 879).

Defendant

Attorney Park Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant

Busan District Court Decision 94No3162 delivered on April 12, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The First Ground for Appeal

Article 7 (1) of the Trade Union Act provides that a trade union may not report a labor dispute unless it is a trade union pursuant to this Act. Article 33 of the same Act provides that a trade union shall grant the right to collective bargaining only to the representative of the trade union or to the person delegated by the trade union. Article 12 (1) of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act provides that an industrial action by a trade union shall not be exercised unless it is decided with the consent of a majority of the union members directly, by secret and secret ballot. In light of the current law, at least an industrial action in a trade union organized is required to be a trade union with the ability to conduct collective bargaining or collective agreement (Article 90Do357 delivered on May 15, 190; Article 91Do324 delivered on May 24, 1991; Article 12 (1) of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act provides that an industrial action by a trade union shall not be conducted unless it is decided with the consent of a majority of union members directly, by secret and secret ballot. Thus, the judgment below is justified and there is no violation of the legal principles as to approve the industrial action or collective action.

The Second Ground of Appeal

If the evidence admitted by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, it can be recognized as a crime of obstruction of business and damage as pointed out by the argument, and it cannot be said that the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles of co-principal. There is no reason for raising

As to the third ground for appeal

As the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, if the defendant attended the meeting of union members and the meeting of union members of the Busan Traffic Authority which has no direct labor relations and made a speech to the effect that "in the event of subway workers and railroad workers are substitute in total, and the party who has withdrawn from the dispute" is the act of inciting the parties concerned as to collective bargaining with the employer as provided in Article 12-2 of the Trade Union Act, it constitutes an act of inciting the parties concerned (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2178 delivered on April 12, 1994; 94Da4042 delivered on September 30, 1994; 94Da4042 delivered on September 30, 1994). Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same effect is just and there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)