Defendant 1 and 24 others

He/she shall hold a public trial for completion of the case.

Attorneys Kim Jong-chul et al.

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 16, Defendant 17, Defendant 19, Defendant 21, Defendant 22, and Defendant 23 are punished by a fine of two million won, Defendant 4, Defendant 7, Defendant 10, Defendant 14, Defendant 15, Defendant 18, Defendant 20, Defendant 24, and Defendant 25, respectively.

If the Defendants did not pay each of the above fines, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period of 10,000 won converted into one day.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each insult against Defendants 2, 9, and 22 is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant 2, Defendant 9, and Defendant 22 is publicly announced.

At around 14:00 on October 24, 2014, the Defendants, as employees of Nonindicted Company 1 located in the Asia-si ( Address omitted), filed a complaint by asserting that the private side is engaged in unfair labor, and brought an industrial action against Nonindicted Party 3, the representative director of Nonindicted Company 1, and the victim Nonindicted Party 2, the vice president of Nonindicted Company 1 and the vice president of Nonindicted Company 1, who are the head of the ○○ factory, were to prepare and post a banner, etc. of insulting contents, and to put up a notice stating insulting contents on the road surface, and to gather up with 60 other members of the management division prior to the office of the management division.

피고인 1은 본관 관리부 사무실 앞에서 방송차량을 이용하여 “오늘 동지들 플랜작업을 시작하도록 하겠습니다. 플랜은 동지들이 모두 함께 진행해야만 이거 빨리 끝낼 수 있고 빨리 쉴 수가 있습니다. 모든 책임은 저 임원들이 질 것이니 걱정하지 마시고 저 플랜 작업을 함에 있어, 프린트 깊숙하게 아주 진하게, 한번 칠할 거 열 번씩 칠해 갖고, 한 번 진하게 작업에 임했으면 좋겠습니다. 동지들! 그렇게 할 수 있죠?”라고 하면서 회사 내 도로에 페인트, 래커 등을 직접 쓰거나 배어들게 할 것을 선동, 지시하고, 이에 따라 피고인 4는 관리부사무실 앞 중앙도로에 얇은 흰색 천을 펼쳐놓고 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 “공소외 2 개새끼”라는 문구를 작성하여 위 페인트가 배어나와 그 문구가 도로에 배이게 하고, 위 흰색 천을 ○○공장 내에 공연히 게시하고, 피고인 23은 관리부사무실 앞 중앙도로에 노란색 페인트를 이용하여 회사 내 도로 바닥에 “공소외 3 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하고, 피고인 17은 관리부사무실 앞 중앙도로에 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 회사 내 도로 바닥에 “공소외 3 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하고, 피고인 11은 관리부사무실 앞 도로 바닥에 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 “공소외 3 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하고, 피고인 3은 회사 정문에 있는 과속방지턱 바닥에 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 “△△이”, “공소외 2 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하고, 피고인 2는 본관동 앞 노상에서 흰색 천을 깔고 검은색 페인트를 이용하여 “금속”이라는 문구를 작성하고 페인트가 바닥으로 배어나와 그 문구가 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 피고인 5는 관리부 앞 노상에서 흰색 천을 깔고 검은색 페인트를 이용하여 “공소외 7 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하고 페인트가 바닥으로 배어나와 그 문구가 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 피고인 10은 회사 정문 앞 노상에 있는 과속방지턱에 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 “개△△ 죽어”, “공소외 2 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하여 이를 현장에 있던 조합원 60여명이 볼 수 있게 주1) 하고, 피고인 25는 관리동 앞 노상에서 흰색 천을 깔고 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 “공소외 2 개새끼” 라는 문구를 작성하고 페인트가 바닥으로 배어나와 그 문구가 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 위 흰색 천을 위 공소외 1 회사 ○○공장 내에 공연히 게시하고, 피고인 7은 관리동 앞 노상에서 흰색 천을 깔고 검은색 페인트를 이용하여 “△△아 정신차려”, “돈지랄 그만해라”, “씨발 죄지은 놈은 넌데 우리보고 사과하라고”라는 문구를 작성하고 페인트가 바닥으로 배어나와 그 문구가 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 위 흰색 천을 위 공소외 1 회사 ○○공장 내에 공연히 게시하고, 피고인 16은 관리부 사무실 앞 노상에서 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 바닥에 “공소외 7 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하고, 피고인 6은 관리부사무실 앞 도로에 노란색 페인트를 이용하여 “공소외 3 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하고, 피고인 14는 관리동 앞 노상에서 바닥에 흰색 천을 깔고 그 곳에 빨간색 스프레이 래커를 이용하여 “공소외 2 구속”, 빨간색 천에는 흰색 스프레이 래커를 이용하여 “좆까”라는 문구를 작성하고 그 문구가 바닥으로 배어나와 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 이를 현장에 있던 조합원 60여명이 볼 수 있게 하고, 피고인 15는 경비실 앞 노상에서 빨간색 천을 바닥에 깔고 노란색 페인트로 “개△△”이라는 문구를 작성하고 그 문구가 바닥으로 배어나와 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 위 빨간색 천을 공소외 1 회사 ○○공장 내에 공연히 게시하고, 피고인 24는 경비실 앞 노상에서 빨간색 천을 바닥에 깔고 노란색 페인트로 “△△ 개새끼”라는 문구를 작성하고 그 문구가 바닥으로 배어나와 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 위 빨간색 천을 공소외 1 회사 ○○공장 내에 공연히 게시하고, 피고인 8은 관리동 앞 노상에서 흰색 천을 바닥에 깔고 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 “공소외 7 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하고 그 문구가 바닥으로 배어나와 그대로 도로에 배이게하고, 피고인 21은 관리동 앞 노상에서 흰색 천을 깔고 페인트를 이용하여 “단결”이라는 문구를 작성하고 그 문구가 바닥으로 배어나와 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 피고인 20은 경비실 앞 도로에 노란색 페인트를 이용하여 공연히 보이도록 “사망해요 좃△△”이라는 문구를 작성하고, 이를 현장에 있던 조합원 60여명이 볼 수 있게 하고, 피고인 12는 관리동 앞 노상에서 빨간색 천을 깔고 흰색스프레이를 이용하여 “공소외 7 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하고 그 흰색스프레이가 바닥으로 배어나와 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 피고인 9는 관리동 앞 노상에서 흰색 천을 바닥에 깔고 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 “성실교섭 이행하라 △△아”라는 문구를 작성하고 그 빨간색 페인트가 바닥으로 배어나와 그대로 노상에 배이게 하고, 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 도로에 “공소외 3 구속”이라는 문구를 작성하고, 피고인 22는 관리동 앞 노상에서 흰색 천을 바닥에 깔고 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 “성실교섭 이행하라 △△아”라는 문구를 작성하고 그 빨간색 페인트가 바닥으로 배어나와 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 피고인 19는 관리동 앞 노상에서 흰색 천을 깔고 빨간색 스프레이래커를 이용하여 “투쟁”, 흰색 천을 바닥에 깔고 흰색 스프레이래커를 이용하여 “물러나라”라는 문구를 작성하고 그 흰색 스프레이레이래커가 바닥으로 배어나와 그대로 도로에 배이게 하고, 피고인 13은 관리동 앞 도로에 빨간색 페인트를 이용하여 “공소외 2 구속”, 노란색 페인트를 이용하여 “단결투쟁”이라는 문구를 작성하고, 피고인 18은 경비실 앞 도로에 공연히 보이도록 노란색 스프레이래커를 이용하여 “공소외 2 개ㅆ”, “개△△”이라는 문구를 작성하고, 이를 현장에 있던 조합원 60여명이 볼 수 있게 하였다.

As a result, the Defendants, by force, damaged the original availability of letters on the roads owned by Nonindicted Co. 1, as seen above, by impairing the utility of the road traffic route, such as cutting the letters on the page owned by Nonindicted Co. 1, thereby impairing the utility of the road. Defendant 4, Defendant 10, Defendant 25, Defendant 7, Defendant 14, Defendant 15, Defendant 24, Defendant 20, Defendant 22, and Defendant 18 openly insultd the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 in the above manner.

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 8

1. Each photograph;

1. Written estimate;

1. Investigation report (Recording, video recording);

1. Each complaint;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 16, Defendant 17, Defendant 19, Defendant 21, Defendant 22, Defendant 23: Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act.

Defendant 4, Defendant 7, Defendant 10, Defendant 14, Defendant 15, Defendant 18, Defendant 20, Defendant 24, and Defendant 25: Articles 369(1), 366(1), and 311(a) of the Criminal Act;

1. Commercial concurrence (defendants 10, 14, 18, and 20);

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 8, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 16, Defendant 17, Defendant 19, Defendant 21, Defendant 22, Defendant 23, Defendant 10, Defendant 14, Defendant 18, and Defendant 20: Selection of a fine.

Defendant 4, Defendant 7, Defendant 15, Defendant 24, and Defendant 25: Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants 4, 7, 15, 24, and 25);

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

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Determination as to the assertion that there was no legitimate complaint

According to the letter of complaint, it is reasonable to interpret that the complaint is effective as a complaint against defamation in a case where the non-indicted 1 corporation only filed a complaint against each of the acts stated in the judgment of the defendants, and the charge of insult is deemed to have not been filed, but the complaint must be determined by the contents of the complaint, rather than the name of the crime attached to the complaint. Although the crime of defamation and insult differs from each of the elements thereof, the crime of defamation and insult is a crime of defamation. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the complaint is effective as a complaint against insult in a case where the crime of insult was not committed but constitutes a crime of insult (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do1250, Jun. 23, 1981). Thus, the argument that there was no legitimate complaint against the crime of insult is rejected.

2. Determination as to the assertion that it does not fall under damage or constitutes a justifiable act

The crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or where the utility thereof is harmed by other means. Here, the term "conscising the utility of property" refers to making the property in a state where it is virtually or emotionally impossible to use it for its original original purpose. It includes making the property in a state where it is temporarily unable to use it. In particular, whether the act of making a scisf or attaching a notice on the wall of a structure constitutes an act of damaging the utility of the structure, such as the use and function of the structure in question, the impact of the act on lighting, ventilation, view, network, etc. of the structure, the degree of harming the aesthetic view of the structure users, the difficulty and difficulty of restoration, expenses for restoration, the purpose and continuity of the act, the situation at the time of the act, etc. shall be determined in accordance with social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007).

In light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, it is difficult to see the Defendants’ act as part of a legitimate industrial action. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendants’ act is deemed to constitute a crime of damage; (b) it is reasonable to see that the Defendants’ act constitutes a crime of damage; and (c) it is difficult to see that the Defendants’ act constitutes a crime of damage, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendants’ direct entry of phrases on the roads of Nonindicted Company 1’s office, etc. using a yellow paint, or entering the phrases on a white spring; (d) the Defendants’ act was damaged by the Defendants’ act; (b) the appearance inside Nonindicted Company 1’s factory was damaged; and (c) Nonindicted Company 1 had the external company restore it; and (d) there were repair costs worth KRW 9

At the time and place of criminal facts indicated in the judgment, Defendant 3: (a) set up the phrase “△△△△△” and “Nonindicted 2 Detention”; (b) set up the phrase “△△△△△△△” and “Nonindicted 2 Detention”; (c) publicly posted the franc card stating “△△△△△△△△△△” in the above Nonindicted Company 1’s factory; and (d) Defendant 9 set up the phrase “△△△△△△△△△” in the front of the management Dong, a white ceiling on the floor of the upper floor and openly posted the above white ceiling inside the Nonindicted Company 1’s ○○○ factory; and (b) Defendant 22 set up the phrase “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△” on the upper floor of the management Dong, and publicly posted it on the victim’s 1,000 in the middle of the management Dong by making the word “Nonindicted 1,000 in the middle of the management Dong.”

2. Determination

The offense of insult under Article 311 of the Criminal Act is a language expression that contains a value judgment to detect a person’s social reputation by expressing an abstract judgment or an sacrific sentiment that may undermine the person’s social reputation. Unlike the foregoing, the establishment of insult should not be determined depending on whether a certain expression constitutes an expression that may mislead the other party by misunderstanding the legal interest protected by the crime of insult as a subjective reputation of a person. Since a language is the most fundamental means of human expression, and a person may have different verbal habits, it cannot be punished as an offense of insult under the Criminal Act on the grounds that such expression is somewhat vague and indecent. Accordingly, if a certain expression is not likely to undermine the other party’s social evaluation of the personal value, even if such expression was expressed in a certain and indecent manner, it cannot be deemed as a constituent element of the offense of insult.

In light of the circumstances leading up to the preparation of the above phrases, place, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and the overall context of the phrases, etc., such expressions may be subject to social and moral criticism, as they are an intangible expression that may discomfore the victim. However, when leaving the victim’s subjective sentiment or sentiments, it is difficult to view the above expressions as constituting an insulting speech that may undermine the social assessment of the victim’s personal value, such as the victim’s humiliation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against the above defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of each crime, and thus, under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendants 2, 9, and 22 are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence against the above defendants pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act, and the defendant 3 shall be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the defendant 3 shall not be tried separately in the text of the

Judges Sedroe

1) The prosecutor indicted Defendant 10 as an ordinary concurrence with the crime of special damage and insult, and prepared the above phrases in the situation where 60 members are together, so the prosecutor’s correction ex officio in order to clarify the intent of the offense of insult.

2) Although the indictment is stated as "joint", the prosecutor applied for the modification of the name of the crime and the applicable provisions of the Act to the effect that the crime was modified due to the special crime of destruction and damage under Article 369(1) of the Criminal Act, and consented thereto by the defendants and their defense counsel. Thus, the defendants' defense rights are not infringed, and the indictment is corrected ex officio as above.