All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full-time deliberation and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendants’ distribution of the former part of this case to the public is merely an expression to the people’s will to realize the constitutional value of public officials as servants of the entire nation, with the establishment of a new public official labor union, and it does not violate political neutrality by revealing political convenience in connection with a specific political party or political force.

Although distributing the leaflet of this case does not constitute “collective act” under Article 58(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act, the lower court did not examine it and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

② The act of distributing the former part of this case is to promote the maintenance and improvement of working conditions and the enhancement of economic and social status, and falls under “justifiable activities” as prescribed by Article 3(1) of the former Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Officials’ Unions, but the lower court did not examine the former part of this case and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the legislative purport of Article 21(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, publication, assembly and association, and the legislative purport of the Local Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith under the Local Public Officials Act, and the duty of full-time care, etc., the term “collective act for any work other than public service” under Article 58(1) of the former Local Public Officials Act is interpreted as “collective act that may affect the duty of full-time care for the purpose contrary to the public interest” (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2960, Apr. 15, 2005).