The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 16(1)1 and 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act”) provides for “matters concerning the enactment and amendment of the Regulations” and “matters concerning the establishment, admission, or withdrawal of a union organization” as matters to be resolved at a general meeting. However, Article 17(1) of the same Act provides that a trade union’s bylaws may have a board of representatives in lieu of the general meeting. Articles 17 and 23 of the Regulations (hereinafter “instant regulations”) of the D trade union (hereinafter “instant union”) clearly distinguish the matters to be resolved at a general meeting and the matters to be resolved at a meeting of delegates (hereinafter “the rules of this case”). Article 23 of the Regulations of this case clearly distinguish the matters to be resolved at a general meeting and the matters to be resolved at a meeting of delegates (hereinafter “the board of representatives as stipulated in the same Act”).

Therefore, during the period from April 27, 201 to April 28, 2011, the Defendant, the representative of the instant association, without going through the resolution of the representatives conference, proposed the amendment of the bylaws to the “matters concerning the establishment, joining, or withdrawal from the association” stipulated in the bylaws to the general assembly’s resolution by holding a general assembly meeting as stated in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “the instant resolution of the general assembly”) and passed a resolution with the consent of 80.18% of the incumbent members and the consent of 62.18% of the voting and voting members (hereinafter “the instant resolution of the general assembly”). Accordingly, it is unlawful for the Defendant to issue an order to correct the instant resolution of the general assembly by no later than January 5, 2010 after the head of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission received the resolution of the instant general assembly on September 17, 2010 (hereinafter “instant corrective order”).

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's act of this case from the administrative authorities as above.