[1] The meaning of "labor movement" and "collective action for activities other than public duties" prohibited by Article 58 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act

[2] The scope of reversal of the judgment of the court below which partially convicted and acquitted the whole of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, where only the prosecutor appealeds the whole of the judgment of the court below, and only the prosecutor's appeal concerning the

[3] The case where the appellate court corrected the decision in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure because it is obvious that the appellate court made a clerical error in the scope of reversal of the judgment of the first instance in its judgment

[1] The main sentence of Article 58 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act provides that "no public official shall engage in any collective activity for any work other than a labor campaign or public service." The term "labor campaign prohibited here refers to the right to organize, collective bargaining, or collective action, or the right to collective action, which is an economic association organized by subordinate workers for the purpose of maintaining and improving their working conditions, and the right to organize, join, and act for any work other than a public service, and the term "collective action" refers not to any collective action committed by public officials for any work other than a public service, but to the effect that the relationship with the Constitution and the Local Public Officials Act guarantee the freedom of speech, publication, assembly, and association, the purpose of legislation of the Local Public Officials Act, the duty to maintain good faith and duty to maintain good faith under the Local Public Officials Act, etc., and the limited right to organize refers to a collective action that affect public service, such as neglect of duty to concentrate on the purpose of "public interest."

[2] In regard to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, the part of the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty and the part of the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant does not appeal against the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty, and in the case where only the prosecutor appealeds the whole part of the acquittal without limiting the part of the acquittal, the part of the judgment of the court below which found the

[3] The case where the appellate court corrected the decision in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure because it is obvious that the appellate court made a clerical error in the scope of reversal of the judgment of the court of first instance in its judgment

[1] Articles 58(1) and 82 of the Local Public Officials Act, Articles 21(1) and 33 of the Constitution / [2] Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 383 and 391 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [3] Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Do2310 decided Feb. 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1078) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 71Do905 decided Jul. 27, 1971 (No. 199-2, 62) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4947 decided Jul. 26, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2127)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Lee Jae-in

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2003No213 delivered on July 22, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. Of the judgment of the court below, the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed, and it shall be corrected to "the judgment of the court of first instance".

1. The main sentence of Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act provides that "no public official shall engage in any collective activity for any work other than labor campaign or public service." The term "labor campaign prohibited here refers to the right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action rights, and the right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action rights, and the limited right to organize are an economic association organized by subordinate workers for the purpose of maintaining and improving their working conditions, and the right to join, and to act for any work other than public service." In addition, the term "collective activity for any work other than public service" refers not to any collective act done by public officials for any work that does not fall under public service, but to mean a collective act that affects the freedom of speech, publication, assembly, and association, and the purpose of legislation of the Constitution and the Local Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith and duty of faith under the Local Public Officials Act, etc., and it also means a collective act that has an influence on public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do294, Feb. 19, 1992).

According to the records, the defendants did not attend a preparatory action for the formation of a trade union, or an assembly belonging to a trade union or a trade union's ordinary activities, but the public officials belonging to the workplace council in the same year were trying to attend an assembly to urge the legitimate guarantee of the establishment of a public official's union, which was held on April 27, 2002, but the police officers of the Dong Sea Police Station in order to resist this for the reason that it was obstructed by the police officers of the Dong Sea Police Station, attending the "Woldo Police Station in the Democratic Nowon-gu Office in the Republic of Korea" which was held by the non-indicted, and conducted collective action by unlawful assembly and demonstration. The above activities of the defendants cannot be deemed as the establishment of a trade union or the trade union's ordinary activities. However, since the defendants' activities cannot be deemed as a collective action which affected the public interest's failure to perform their duty for the purpose of violating Article 58 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act, it constitutes an unlawful act of violation of the provisions of Article 58 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act.

2. Meanwhile, in the case of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, part of the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty and part of the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty does not appeal against the judgment of the court below that found the defendant not guilty, and in the case where only the prosecutor appealeds the whole part of the judgment of the court below without limiting the part of the acquittal, the part of the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty should be reversed together with the part of the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty should be reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Do905, Jul. 27, 1971; 2001Do4947, Jul. 26, 2002). The court below stated that the judgment of the court of first instance only reversed the part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part that found the defendant guilty are aggravated as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed. Since there is an obvious error in the judgment of the court below, it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)