The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the crime of interference with business is established where a person interferes with business by deceptive means or force.

(Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act). The term "power of force" means all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a free will of a person.

The strike as an industrial action that obstructs the normal operation of business by refusing to provide labor for the purpose of accomplishing the claim is a practical exercise that prevents the employee from providing labor under a labor contract, and thus collectively suspends the employee's assertion by imposing pressure on the employer. Thus, the elements constituting force as referred to in the crime of interference with business include the elements of force as referred to in the crime of interference with business.

However, under Article 37(2) of the Constitution, workers may be limited on the grounds of public interest, such as national security, maintenance of order, and public welfare, and the exercise of their rights should be justified, and is not absolute rights. However, in principle, workers have the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions as fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

(Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that 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 the refusal of collective labor constitutes force and the crime of interference with business is established only when it can be evaluated that the free will of the employer to continue the business can be avoided because the strike as an industrial action takes place at a time unpredictable by the employer in light of the situation and circumstances before and after, and after,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do482 Decided March 17, 2011). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination is based on the evidence adopted.