Defendant 1

Escopic species

Law Firm Citizens, Attorneys Kim Nam-han

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,00,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000, respectively.

When Defendant 1 fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Defendant 1 is the chairman of Defendant 2’s trade union (hereinafter “Defendant 2’s trade union”). Defendant 2’s trade union is a juristic person established for the purpose of improving the labor conditions of union members and enhancing political, economic, and social status of public officials.

1. Defendant 1

A. On June 3, 2008, the Defendant instructed the head of the labor union headquarters and the head of the branch office of the Defendant 2, who is located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), to “the △△△ candlelight cultural concentrated seat” at Defendant 2’s labor union office.

The above guidelines included the following contents: candlelight uncultural system in the area (e.g., Seoul concentrating the area), the date and time of Do Governor: June 3, 2, 3 (total concentration) and June 10 (6. 10) each day before the 19th city square of Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, the progress of candlelight cultural system in front of the square, the target of Do Governor: the union members including all the union members, the Do governor preparations: the light clothes Do governor, and the Do governor's diskettes directly produced.

(1) At around 18:30 on June 3, 2008, candlelight assemblies were held in the Cheongdo square in Jongno-gu Seoul. From around 19:00 on the same day, candlelight assemblies were held in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul.

At around 18:30 of the same day with Defendant 2’s union members, the Defendant participated in the general assembly held in the Cheongsan square by referring to the clicket as indicated in the above guidelines. On the same day, around 19:00 on the same day, the number of union members of Defendant 2 participated in the candlelight assembly held in the above Seoul square.

As such, the Defendant conspiredd with Defendant 2 trade union members, and committed a group other than public duties.

(2) At around 19:00 on June 10, 2008, about 80,000 members, including the general members of the U.S. U.S. beef import and opposition conference were held at the Seoul plaza located in Tae-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul.

The Defendant participated in the above candlelight assembly from around 19:00 to 21:00 on the same day with approximately 100 members of the Defendant 2 trade union, and took part in the above candlelight assembly, and took part in the rescue of Defendant 2’s large flagpoles and “the △△△△△△”.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with approximately one hundred members of the labor union of Defendant 2 and committed a group act other than official duties as above.

B. On June 25, 2008, the Defendant instructed the head of the labor union headquarters and the head of the branch office of Defendant 2 to the guidelines for “the strike against the transportation of bovine Disease and beef” at the above Defendant 2’s trade union office.

The above guidelines were: from June 26, 2008, from 09:00 on June 26, 2008, from 09: ○○○○○○, and ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○,” and the ○○○○○○○, a group of headquarters headquarters with at least five persons for each headquarters: ○○○○○/○○○, a group below the Incheon regional/Cheongcheon shall be incorporated into a Busan region, and the detailed directions and guidelines after the incorporation into a Busan region shall comply with the chairperson’s guidelines. A separate attachment was made in Part 1 of the logistics warehouse arrangement status.

On June 26, 2008, Defendant 2 trade union members and approximately 40 members of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Headquarters held a meeting as part of the strike in front of the ○○○○○○○ warehouse in the Gyeonggi-si ( Address 2 omitted).

As a result, the Defendant conspiredd with approximately 40 members of the labor union of Defendant 2 and committed a group other than public duties as above.

C. On July 1, 2008, the Defendant instructed the head of the labor union and the head of the branch office of the above Defendant 2 to the “Appearance of candlelights Meeting” in the above Defendant 2’s labor union office.

The above guidelines were contents such as “7/2-7/6-6 candlelight combinations.”

On July 2, 2008, around 19:00, about 5,00 members and non-indicted 8 members participated in the above Seoul plaza, the candlelight assembly was held.

The Defendant participated in the above candlelight assembly from around 19:00 to 21:00 on the same day with approximately 20 members of the Defendant 2 trade union, and went out of the relief of Defendant 2’s trade union such as “influence of renegotiation.”

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with approximately 20 members of the labor union of Defendant 2 and committed a group other than public duties.

D. On March 5, 2008, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission decided that Article 7(2) of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission stipulated that “When a public official is dismissed, dismissed, or dismissed and applied for remedy for unfair labor practices to the Labor Relations Commission pursuant to Article 82(1) of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the status of the member shall not be deemed lost until the Central Labor Relations Commission makes a decision on review.”

On April 28, 2008, the Defendant was ordered by the head of the Seoul Southern District Office to correct the violation of Article 7(2) of the Rules of the Labor Union by May 29, 2008.

In addition, the defendant was ordered by the Minister of Labor on August 28, 2008 to correct the same content as the deadline of September 29, 2008.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not correct the rules of Defendant 2’s labor union and violated the administrative authority’s corrective order.

2. Defendant 2 trade union;

The above defendant 1, who is the representative of the defendant at the same time and place as the above "1-D", violated the order to correct the labor union rules of the administrative agency as above in relation to the defendant's business.

1. The legal statement of Defendant 1 and the representative of Defendant 2 trade union, Defendant 1’s partial statement

1. Each protocol on the examination of suspects against Defendant 1, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 12

1. Statement on Nonindicted 13’s statement

1. A written accusation;

1. Each defendant 2's trade union letter, public notice of corrective order, public notice of decision request, each public notice of corrective order, each public notice of request for decision, public notice of request for extension of due date, public notice of request for corrective order, public notice of order for corrective order, public notice of order for corrective measure, defendant 2's trade union rules, each temporary meeting data of the Central Executive Committee, meeting data of the Central Committee, and report on the situation of each information;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Various candlelights, photographs, and documentary photographs;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendant 1: Articles 82 and 58(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act (Amended by Act No. 10147, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of a collective action other than public service, the selection of fines), Articles 93 subparag. 2 and 21(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (the point of violation of corrective order)

Defendant 2 Trade Union: Article 94, Article 93 subparag. 2, and Article 21(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant 1);

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Attraction in a workhouse (Defendant 1);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Ad hoc payment order:

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendants’ assertion

A. Article 58(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act provides that "no public official shall engage in any collective activity for any labor campaign or other work other than public duties." A group prohibited under Article 58(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act does not mean any collective activity conducted by public officials for any work that does not belong to public duties, but shall be limited to "collective activity that may affect the duty of care in good faith for the purpose of public interest" by comprehensively taking into account the legislative intent of Article 21(1) of the Constitution and the duty of good faith and duty of care, etc. of the State Public Officials Act, which guarantee the freedom of speech, publication, assembly, and association, and shall be limited to "collective activity that may affect the duty of care in good faith for the purpose of public interest." Defendant 1's participation in the assembly of this case in the process of pointed out the illegality of the former citizen issue, and demanding renegotiation of the beef import issue, which is in accordance with the guidelines of superior labor union, and thus, it cannot be viewed as an act contrary to public interest as a legitimate trade union activity.

B. On September 21, 2009 to September 22, 2009, Defendant 2’s trade union established “Nonindicted 3 trade union (Nonindicted 4)” in accordance with the merger resolution with Nonindicted 1 trade union (the chairperson of Nonindicted 14; hereinafter “Nonindicted 1 trade union”) and Nonindicted 2 trade union (the chairperson of Nonindicted 7). The above Nonindicted 3 trade union changed its name to “Defendant 2 trade union,” and submitted to the Minister of Labor a report on the establishment of the first police officer on December 2009, and Defendant 2 trade union also reported “merger due to merger.” Thus, Defendant 2 trade union asserts that the dismissal of prosecution should be dismissed since it became extinct due to merger.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant 1’s assertion that the assembly of this case constitutes a legitimate trade union activity or cannot be deemed a collective activity for activities other than official duties

(1) It is reasonable to interpret that the act of gathering the instant assembly by Defendant 1 is limited to activities directly and indirectly necessary for the maintenance and improvement of the working conditions of public officials or for the improvement of social and economic status as “reasonable activities related to a trade union” under Article 3 of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Public Officials’ Labor Unions (hereinafter “Public Officials’ Labor Union Act”) to be limited to activities directly and indirectly necessary for the maintenance and improvement of the working conditions of public officials or for their direct activities. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the act of gathering the instant assembly by Defendant 1 is intended to maintain and improve the working conditions of public officials and to promote the enhancement of social and economic status, and it is a political collective activity exercising specific influence to accomplish their own political intentions in accordance with the guidelines of Nonindicted 8, a superior organization, and constitutes an act in violation of the regulations on the prohibition of political activities as stipulated in Article 4 of the

(2) However, inasmuch as collective action other than official duties prohibited under Article 58(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act does not mean any collective action conducted by public officials for any purpose other than official duties, but also includes media, publication, assembly, and association freedom under Article 21(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of association, constitutional principles, the purport of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith and duty of care under the State Public Officials Act, etc., collective action that may affect the public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2310, Feb. 14, 1992) or collective action that may interfere with the performance of duties as public officials or violates the fundamental purpose of Article 58(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4839, Apr. 23, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 200Nu58160, Mar. 29, 192). 5, 200

(3) In a case where a group activity other than a public official’s official duties is detrimental to the public interest while pursuing a certain public interest purpose, on the other hand, whether such group activity is contrary to the public interest should be determined comprehensively based on the objective criteria prepared through a normative interpretation based on the general social norms of the majority of the public who have a reasonable common sense by comparing and balancing the public interest pursued and the public

According to the above judgment criteria, Defendant 1’s assembly of this case constitutes a collective political activity in violation of Article 4 of the Public Officials’ Labor Assistance Act, Article 4 of the Public Officials’ Labor Union Act, as to whether Defendant 1’s assembly of this case’s assembly of this case’s assembly of this case’s collective political activity constitutes a public official’s political activity in violation of the public interest, and Article 7 and Article 37(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, securing political neutrality of public official’s duties, which is inherent in the public interest, and securing the political neutrality of public official’s labor union, which is likely to exert a huge influence upon political power, thereby guaranteeing the trust of the public official in charge of policy enforcement, maintaining state stability, maintaining social order, and promoting public welfare. As seen above, Defendant 1’s assembly of this case’s assembly of this case’s assembly of this case’s case’s case constitutes a public official’s collective political activity in violation of Article 4 of the Public Officials’ Labor Assistance Act, which is a public official’s provision, and thus, it appears that the assembly of this case’s assembly of this case’s case’s public interest will seriously undermine or public interest.

(4) As seen earlier, insofar as Defendant 1 committed an act in violation of Article 4 of the Public Officials Labor Union Act to realize the political neutrality obligation and committed an act contrary to the public interest, Defendant 1 is deemed to have committed an act that may affect the failure to perform his/her duty of care, and a group act that may affect the failure to perform his/her duty of care was conducted on a holiday does not change on the ground that the act was conducted on a holiday (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4199, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.). Whether such an act was conducted during the leave of absence, and whether Defendant 1 has neglected his/her individual duties specifically assigned, such as whether it was performed during the leave of absence, and whether it was performed outside the working hours,

Therefore, Defendant 1’s assembly of this case constitutes collective acts other than official duties, which affect public officials’ failure to perform their duty of care against the public interest. Thus, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on Defendant 2’s assertion on the extinction of a corporation

According to each of the investigation reports (a copy of the register attached to the copy of the corporate register, and the representative confirmation) submitted by the public prosecutor, the registration of Defendant 2’s trade union is still in existence without any change, and it is recognized that the registration of dissolution or the registration of merger of a new integrated union was not made, and even based on the data submitted by the above Defendant, the report of establishment of the trade union submitted by the new integrated association was also rejected. Thus, the above defendant’s assertion based on the premise that the labor union of Defendant 2 cannot be deemed to be extinguished due

Judges Jeon Soo-tae