beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the defendants A, the part of the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the defendant A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles - Defendants are workers in charge of automobile manufacturing in three parts of the chemical 3 plant assembly of the victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”). From that point of time, Defendants and other workers have been continuing the above production work for about one year in a state where there are lack human resources, such as where the workers in charge of the “LPI spring tank installation process” (hereinafter “LPI spring tank installation process”) were not assigned during the above work in lieu of the promotion of the above three parts of assembly.
With respect to such shortage of human resources, the victim company agreed to recruit new human resources to be in charge of the instant fairness until June 30, 2013 to the Defendants, etc., but even if the above number of personnel was not increased by the time of the instant case, the company attempted to operate the instant production work, as it is. The Defendants, who were in charge of the representative position of the labor union, temporarily obstructed the operation of production lines with the intent of demanding the victim company to comply with the above human resources support agreement on behalf of the said employees, and did not commit such act with the intent to interfere with the victim company’s business.
In addition, even if the contents of the Defendants’ act were examined, the Defendants did not use violent means, such as demanding human resources and suspending production work in front of the instant productionra, and did not use the working group leader, and in the case of the instant productionra, the Human Resources Resources was not properly established as above. Therefore, even if there was no such act by the Defendants, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act in the instant case interfered with the Defendant’s business due to the Defendant’s act in light of the fact that it was difficult to normally proceed with the said production.
In addition, the defendants are also the defendants.