Ga. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence)

(b) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

1.(a)A (58 years old, south)

2. A. B. P. P. A1 (54years, South)

3.(a)A2 (75years, South)

Redwon

Attorney Cho Young-chul (for the defendant)

May 25, 2010

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment of this case. Of the facts charged in this case, each of the defendants is not guilty as to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the holding of an outdoor assembly not reported on September 4, 2009 and violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to non-compliance with an order of dispersion.

Criminal facts

피고인 천A는 ◇노동조합 ◆본부 의장으로 활동하는 사람이고, 피고인 이A2는 ◇노동조합 □본부 조직부장으로 활동하는 사람이고, 피고인 정A1은 ◇노동조합 □본부 ■지부 △지회(이하 ‘▲’라고 한다) 지회장으로 활동하던 사람이다.

▲가 2009.6.24.에, ◇노동조합 □본부 ■지부 ◎지회(이하'◎'라고 한다)가 2009. 6. 27.에 각 설립되어 사용자인 *협동조합 부산지부 소속 6개 예선업체 및 협동조합 ■지부 소속 3개 예선업체를 상대로 노조전임자 인정, 노조사무실 제공, 특별성과급 지급 등을 요구하면서 단체교섭을 진행하였으나 교섭이 결렬되자, 2009. 8. 7.부터 전면 파업에 돌입하였고, 그 후 ▲는 2009. 11. 10. 파업을 종료하고 업무에 복귀하였다. 그 과정에서 ▲ 및 ◎지회 소속 조합원들이 노동조합 조직 및 활동 경험이 없어 노동조합 조직 · 운영 및 쟁의 활동에 어려움이 예상되자, 피고인 천A, 이 A2 등 ◇노동조합 ◆본부 간부들이 처음부터 ▲장인 피고인 정A1, ◎장 윤C1과 함께 ▲ 및 ◎지회의 조직·운영 및 쟁의 활동에 주도적으로 관여하였다.

1. Holding an outdoor assembly that was not reported on August 20, 2009 by Defendant Jeong1 and thisA2

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, etc. of the assembly to the chief of the competent police station, but the above Defendants did not report on August 20, 209.

피고인 이A2는 2009. 8. 20. 19:30경부터 같은 날 20:30경까지 약 1시간 동안 부산 부산진구 부전동에 있는 '쥬디스태화’ 앞 인도에서 음향시설 및 영상장치 등을 설치한 다음 ‘고용 휴일도 보장받지 못한 잃어버린 30년 예선선원 노동자 노동기본권을 보장하라' 및 '더 이상 노예로 살 수 없다, 노동조합 인정하고 성실하게 교섭하라'고 기재된 현수막 2개, '민주노총◆본부 자주통일실천단'으로 기재된 깃발 1개 등을 게시한 후, ▲ 조합원 60여 명 등 총 150여 명이 참석한 가운데, 참석자들로 하여금 ▲ 파업의 정당성 등에 대하여 발언하게 하고, '인간답게 살고 싶다, 노동조합 인정하라'는 구호를 제창하게 하였다.

피고인 정A1은 그 과정에서 ▲ 조합원과 그 가족들에게 연락하여 위 집회에 참석하게 하였다.

As a result, Defendant Jeong1 and thisA2 conspiredd to hold an unreported outdoor assembly.

2. 피고인들의 2009. 10. 13. 폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률위반(공동주거침입) 및 신고한 집회의 장소를 뚜렷이 벗어나는 행위로 인한 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 위반 및 ◎지회가 위와 같이 2009. 8. 7. 전면 파업에 돌입한 후 관할 노동청, 항만청, 예선업체 앞 등에서 집회를 개최하거나 대시민 홍보활동을 진행하였고, 특히 ▲는 2009. 8. 18.부터 2009. 10. 12.까지 사이에 부산지방노동청 앞에서 총 15회에 걸쳐 정부의 교섭중재를 촉구하는 취지의 집회를 개최하였으며, 한편 2009. 10. 7. ‘집회의 개최목적 노동조합활동 보장, 성실교섭촉구, 개최일시 2009. 10. 9. 일출시부터 2009. 10. 13. 일몰시까지, 개최장소 부산지방노동청 앞, 주최자 운수노조 ◆본부 장 천A, 참가예 정인원 200명’으로 기재하여 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제6조 제1항에 따른 집회의 신고를 하였다.

Nevertheless, the strike has become more than 2 months without the proper progress of negotiations on the wind that the employer refuses to accept the trade union's demand, and the strong position of the employer is high.

이에 피고인들은 2009. 10. 12. 오후경 부산 동구 초량동에 있는 부산역사 내 노동조합 ◆본부 사무실에서 위 윤C1과 함께 그 대책을 논의하던 중, 2009. 10. 14. 부산 지방노동청에서 개최 예정인 국회 환경노동위원회 국정감사에 즈음하여 그 전날인 2009. 10. 13. 부산지방노동청 1층 로비를 점거하여 농성함으로써 교섭재개의 계기로 삼기로 계획하였다.

그 후 피고인 정A1은 ▲ 간부들로 하여금 소속 조합원들이 2009. 10. 13. 09:30경 부산지방해양항만청 앞에서 개최 예정인 집회를 종료한 직후 같은 날 11:00까지 부산 연제구 연산동에 있는 부산지방노동청 부근 공원에 개별적으로 집결하게 하도록 지시하고, 위 윤C1은 ⑥지회 간부들로 하여금 소속 조합원들이 위 시각까지 부산 금정구 노포동에 있는 시외버스터미널을 거쳐 부산지방노동청 부근에 있는 부산시청 지하철역 2번 또는 4번 출구에 개별적으로 집결하게 하도록 지시하고, 피고인 천A는 피고인 이A2로 하여금 위와 같이 집결한 조합원들을 인솔하여 부산지방노동청 1층 로비로 진입 하여 연좌하도록 지시하였다.

그리고, 피고인 천A, 피고인 정A1 및 위 윤C1은 2009. 10. 13. 11:00경 부산지방노 동청을 방문하여 과장 김C2 등과 면담을 하면서 조합원들이 제기한 체불임금 진정 사건의 처리가 지연되고 있다는 이유로 부산지방노동청장의 면담을 요구하고, 그 동안 위 지시에 따라 집결한 ▲ 및 ◎지회 조합원 121명은 같은 날 11:20 경부터 11:30경까지 사이에 부산지방노동청 1층 로비에 들어간 다음, 그때부터 같은 날 14:50경까지 사이에 피고인 이A2의 지시에 따라 그 곳 바닥에 연좌하여 부산지방노동청장과의 면담을 요구하면서 노동가를 부르고, '노동청장은 각성하라'는 구호를 제창하였다. 이로써 피고인들은, 위 윤C1 및 .. ◎지회 조합원 121명과 공동하여 부산지방노동청장이 관리하는 건조물인 부산지방노동청 1층에 침입하고, 위 윤C1과 공모하여 신고한 집회의 장소를 뚜렷이 벗어나는 행위를 하여 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률을 위반하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement in compliance with the above statements made by the Defendants in this Court 1. Witness Kim-C2, Lee C3, and Kim C4, each of the prosecutor's interrogation records as to the last C5, corresponding to the above statements (Evidence List No. 134, 135)

1. Each statement (Evidence List Nos. 12, 13, 17 through 31) of the police interrogation protocol against the police officers in relation to leapC1, Kim Da6, Choi c7, Lee c8, Lee c9, Cho c10, Cho c11, and Sung C12;

1. Request for investigation, report on information status, and photograph (Evidence Nos. 1); and

1. Investigation report, written request for eviction, written complaint, written report on assembly and photograph (Evidence Nos. 7);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports and information situation reports (Evidence Nos. 64);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendants: Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the points of joint residence intrusion), Articles 22(3) and 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of holding an assembly clearly deviating from the scope of reported places, etc.);

B. Defendant Jeong 1 and Lee 2: Articles 22(2) and 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the holding of an outdoor assembly not reported)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That with respect to Defendant A, within the scope of the total of the maximum term of punishment for each crime)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da11448, Apr. 1, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448, Apr. 1, 201)

Judgment on the Defense Counsel's argument

1. Holding an outdoor assembly that was not reported on August 20, 2009 by Defendant Jeong1 and thisA2

A. Defendant UA1 and EA2’s defense counsel asserted that the foregoing date outdoor assembly is not subject to reporting by exercising cultural festivals. They asserted that the above date outdoor assembly shows images and cultural performances for the purpose of informing citizens and their family members of the unjust treatment, and that some participants are cultural events for which free speech was made, and that it is not an assembly subject to reporting under the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

The Assembly and Demonstration Act requires a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration to submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, organizer, etc. of the assembly or demonstration to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours prior to the commencement of the assembly or demonstration (Article 6 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act), but the above provision does not apply to an assembly on academic events, such as learning, art, sports, religion, ceremony, friendship, entertainment, marriage, marriage, funeral and ancestor worship, funeral and ancestor worship, etc. (Article 15 of the above Act). In such a case, it is reasonable to judge whether an assembly or demonstration is an assembly or demonstration, etc. for which a report is not to be filed, by taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose, time, place, content, behavior of participants, etc.

판시 각 증거에 의하면, ① 집회 당시 게시된 현수막이나 깃발 등에 기재된 문구 등에 나타나는 이 사건 집회의 목적이 예선노조의 파업정당성을 알리고, 노동조합활동의 보장 및 성실교섭을 촉구하기 위한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 집회 참석자는 ▲ 조합원 및 가족 등 총 150여 명이었고, 집회 참석자들로 하여금 ▲ 파업의 정당성 등에 대하여 발언하게 하고, '인간답게 살고 싶다, 노동조합 인정하라'는 구호를 제창하게 한 점, ③ 피고인들이 주최한 이 사건 집회와 유사한 행사 내용으로 진행된 다른 집회에 대하여는 피고인들 스스로도 신고대상이 된다고 보고 이를 신고한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 이 사건 집회는 단순한 문화제 행사가 아닌 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률에 의하여 신고대상이 되는 집회라 할 것이어서 변호인의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

B. Defendant 1 and EA2’s defense counsel in relation to the provision prohibiting outdoor assembly at night was prohibited from being held at night at the time of the instant assembly, and the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution regarding the provision prohibiting outdoor assembly at night was made after the instant assembly. As such, it was not possible to think that the above Defendants were required to report the outdoor assembly at night at the time of the instant assembly, and thus, the above Defendants cannot be punished because there is no possibility to expect that they should report the instant assembly at night.

In principle, an outdoor assembly at night under Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act is prohibited, and if certain requirements are met, it may be permitted to do so. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution to the effect that “the portion of the outdoor assembly under Article 10 of the above Act is not in accord with the Constitution.” The above provision is applied to the period of June 30, 2010 until the legislator amends the Constitution.” As such, the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution to the effect that “it shall continue to apply until the amendment was made by the legislator.” As such, even if there was a high possibility that it was not permitted in relation to the report on the night assembly at the time of the instant assembly, which is the previous one, even if the above circumstance alone, it cannot be deemed that the above Defendants were unable to perform their duty to report or are not attributable to failure to perform such duty. Therefore, the defense counsel

2. The defense counsel of the defendants in common residence asserts that the Busan Regional Labor Administration is the place where the defendants and the members have the right to enter, entered it in a peaceful and peaceful manner, and there is no interference with the business, so the crime of intrusion on a structure is not established because there is no criminal intent of entering a structure.

The crime of scambling or entering a structure is established to enter the structure against the will of the manager.

In general, when it is necessary, the manager can prohibit or restrict the entry, and even if it is open, it is against the will of the manager to enter the premises of the building and remove relief and work for the manager, thereby undermining the peace and peace of the building.

According to the evidence of the judgment, the defendants and members were not in a realistic situation and they did not actually control KimC4, which had been spent at the due diligence room at the Busan Regional Labor Administration's expense, but did not have a normal access, and reported the situation immediately. ② Although the defendant 3 chief of the labor improvement guidance who interviewed the defendant YA, the defendant 1 and Y1 requested the defendant YA to leave the union members, the defendant Y refused it, the defendant Y et al. refused it, and the 3 chief of the labor improvement instruction who met the defendant YA et al. requested the head of the Busan Regional Labor Administration to leave the union members, ③ to request the facilities protection to the head of the Busan Regional Labor Administration in order to let the defendants and the union members leave the office, and ④ the defendants and the union members did not comply with the order to leave the police officers' office, and eventually, they were dissolved due to the defendant's failure to comply with the order to leave the office. In light of these circumstances, the defendants' allegation that the defendant's defense counsel was in the defendant's explicit or the defendant's defense.

3. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act beyond the scope of the reported place, etc.

After the conclusion of the instant argument, the Defendants’ defense counsel added to the assertion that on October 13, 2009, an indoor assembly was held on May 14, 201 through the submission of the summary of the argument at the hearing on May 14, 2010, not an outdoor assembly, and the assembly is not subject to the Act on Assembly and Demonstration because the duty to report was not fulfilled. However, on October 13, 2009, the Defendants’ assembly is evaluated as part of the reported assembly activities in light of the purpose of the assembly, the participants and participants’ attending the assembly, the circumstances leading up to the assembly and the progress of the assembly. The Defendants increased the risk of violation of public safety and order by holding the assembly at the Busan Regional Labor Office as part of the reported assembly’s criminal act outside the reported assembly place. It cannot be deemed that the place does not constitute an act stipulated in Articles 22(3) and 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act solely on the ground that it was inside the building, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is no reason to deem the above defense for lack of reason.

Parts of innocence

1. The Defendants’ organizing an outdoor assembly not reported on September 4, 2009

A. Summary of the facts charged

Any person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, etc. of the assembly to the chief of the competent police station.

피고인들은 신고를 하지 아니한 채, 2009. 9. 4. 19:35 경부터 같은 날 20:55경까지 약 1시간 20분 동안 부산 동구 초량동에 있는 부산역 광장에서, 피고인 천A는 음향시설 및 영상장치 등을 설치한 다음 ▲ 조합원 50여명 등 총 200여 명이 참석한 가운데 ▲ 파업의 정당성을 알리는 취지의 영상물을 상영하고 참석자들로 하여금 ▲ 조합원들의 열악한 근로조건, 요구사항의 정당성 등에 대하여 발언하게 하고, '인간답게 살아보자, 민주노총 사수하자'는 구호를 제창하게 하고, 피고인 이A2는 위 집회 진행을 위하여 사회를 보고, 피고인 정A1은 ▲ 조합원들과 그 가족들에게 연락하여 위 집회에 참석하게 함으로써 공모하여 미신고 옥외집회를 주최하였다.

(b) Fact of recognition;

옥외집회신고서(증거목록 순번 66), 채증자료 통보서, 사진, 정보상황보고서(증거 목록 순번 67), 피고인들에 대한 각 경찰 피의자신문조서(증거목록 순번 68 내지 70)의 각 기재를 종합하면, 피고인들은 2009. 9. 1. '집회의 개최목적 노동조합활동 보장, 성실교섭촉구, 개최일시 2009. 9. 4. 17:00 - 일몰시까지, 개최장소 부산역 광장, 주최자 운수노조 ◆본부 장 천A, 참가예정인원 300명' 으로 기재하여 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제6조 제1항에 따른 집회의 신고를 하였고, 같은 날 17:00경부터 부산역 광장에서 위 집회의 개최목적에 따른 집회를 준비하였으나 참석자들의 숫자가 적어 시간이 지체되다가 퇴근시간 이후 참석자들이 모이면서 같은 날 19:35 경부터 20:55 경까지 ▲ 파업의 정당성을 알리는 취지의 영상물 상영, 관련 발언, 구호 제창 등의 집회를 한 사실이 인정된다.

C. Determination

① According to the above facts, an outdoor assembly held at night on September 4, 2009 was held beyond the reported time and at night, but Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act prohibits, in principle, an outdoor assembly held at night until sunset, and it appears that it is possible to predict the possibility that many people may delay the holding of the assembly or delay the time. ② Article 10 of the above Act prohibits outdoor assembly at night in principle, the Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ga25 decided September 24, 2009, it is difficult to see that the restriction on the timing of the assembly held before and after sunset would impair the identity of the assembly; ③ Article 22(2) and Article 6(1) of the above Act prohibits the organizer of the non-reported outdoor assembly, and Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that the Defendants may be separately from the date and time of the assembly held within 100,000 won, and Article 22(3)16 of the Act provides that the Defendants shall be separately from the reported assembly organizer of the assembly.

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

2. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the Defendants’ failure to comply with the dispersion order

A. Summary of the facts charged

On October 13, 2009, the Defendants entered the place of assembly reported on October 13, 2009 with the first floor of the Busan Regional Labor Administration and demanded an interview with the Administrator of the Busan Regional Labor Administration, and the head of the Labour Administration, who gets out of the place of assembly and demanded an interview with the Administrator of the Maritime Labor Administration.

그 과정에서 피고인 천A, 피고인 정A1 및 윤C1은 같은 날 11:50경을 전후하여 부산 연제경찰서 서장이C13로부터 권한을 위임받은 위 경찰서 ▦과장 김C14로부터 수 회에 걸쳐 집회 종결선언 요청을 받았고, 피고인들 및 ▲,◎ 조합원 122명은 위 김C14로부터 같은 날 12:10경 자진해산 요청을, 같은 날 12:20경 1차 해산명령을, 같은 날 13:55경 2차 해산명령을 각 받았고, 같은 날 14:35경 위이C13로부터 3차 해산명령을 받았음에도 이에 응하지 아니하였다.

이로써 피고인들은 위 윤C1 및 ▲,◎지회 조합원 121명과 공모하여 경찰공무원의 해산명령을 받았음에도 지체없이 해산하지 아니하여 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률을 위반하였다.

B. Determination

In light of the contents of the facts charged in this case, the assembly which is the object of the dispersion order in this case is an assembly which clearly deviates from the scope of the place reported under Article 16 (4) 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. Therefore, the applicable provisions of the above facts charged are Articles 24 subparagraph 5, 20 (2), 20 (1) 5, and 16 (4) 3 of the above Act. The applicable provisions of Article 20 (1) 5 of the indictment in this case do not appear to be simple omission of Article 20 (1) 5 of the above Act. Article 20 (1) 5 of the above Act provides that "an assembly or demonstration which cannot maintain order due to an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 16 (4)", and it is insufficient to prove that the assembly does not clearly deviate from the scope of the place reported by the target assembly. Thus, all evidence presented by the prosecutor are insufficient to acknowledge the order of the assembly in this case.

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Superintendent-hee