The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s act constitutes “justifiable activities related to labor unions” under Article 3(1) of the Public Officials’ Labor Unions Act, and does not violate Article 11 of the Public Officials’ Labor Unions Act (Prohibition of Industrial Actions), Article 57 of the Local Public Officials Act, and Article 9 of the Local Public Officials’ Service Regulations (Prohibition of Political Activities) and does not violate the political neutrality of public officials. Thus, the application of the main sentence of Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act is excluded.

B) The Defendant participated in the instant assembly to resist excessive infringement of fundamental rights and unfair disciplinary measures by the Ministry of the Interior and Safety. This is a legitimate exercise of fundamental rights, and since it is an act with legitimacy in relation to a trade union, the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Public Officials’ Labor Unions (hereinafter “Public Officials’ Labor Unions Act”).

Article 58(1) main sentence of Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act shall be excluded pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Local Public Officials Act. In addition, acts such as newspaper advertisements by public officials' union are within the ordinary scope of activities of a trade union with the purport of stating the illegality of the disciplinary policy of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security and requiring the guarantee of freedom of political expression. The defendant's participation in the assembly of this case does not constitute a violation of Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act because the defendant's act does not constitute a violation of the Local Public Officials Act, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even if it is found that the defendant was guilty of unfair sentencing.