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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court maintained the conclusion of innocence of the first instance court on the following grounds: “The Defendant believed that a large number of persons was allowed to enter the Ulsan Factory by accompanying the full-time trade union executive officer in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreement to the full-time trade union and entered it against the will of the victim company even though the Defendant is not an employee of the victim Hyundai Automobile Corporation (hereinafter “victim Company”) or its partner company, and without going through a normal procedure from November 15, 2010 to February 10, 201, and without going through the victim company’s normal access process, and invaded the Ulsan Factory by taking advantage of the gap in entering the Ulsan Factory during the work hours of the victim company.”

(1) Article 10 of the collective agreement concluded between a victim company and the National Metal Trade Union provides that “A company shall guarantee access to persons requested by the union, but limited to an association’s office: Provided, That it is possible to enter the scene at the time of accompanying the association’

② When entering Ulsan Factory, the Defendant accompanied with D or E, who is an executive member of the victim company as a full-time trade union at the victim company, and entered or departing from a vehicle or stop, or stop around the stop.

③ The Defendant’s entry into the Ulsan Factory is for the purpose of serving as the Deputy Secretary-General of the Victim Company as the reason for the Defendant’s entry into the Ulsan Factory, which is to guarantee the legitimate activities of the Trade Union.

④ As above, the Defendant did not have access to the Ulsan Factory, accompanied by the executives and employees of the full-time trade union, and was removed from the guard and management employees during the course of entry.

⑤ The Defendant worked in the above C branch office, provided meals at approximately 50 meters away from each place to the main restaurant, and the victim’s general task team using the said cafeteria.