The judgment below

Among the Defendants, the part concerning the crime of interference with business from November 5, 2009 to November 6, 2009 and the part concerning the crime of interference with business against the Defendants on November 26, 2009.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order for a worker's industrial action to be recognized as a justifiable act, the subject of the collective bargaining shall be able to be the subject of the collective bargaining, the purpose of the industrial action shall be to create autonomous bargaining between labor and management to improve working conditions, and the employer shall commence the collective bargaining with respect to a specific request for the improvement of working conditions of the workers, and barring any special circumstances, it shall undergo procedures prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a decision to approve and decide members, and the means and methods thereof shall not be in harmony with the employer's property rights, etc.,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15499 Decided May 23, 2013, etc.). In addition, since an employee, in principle, has the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, the strike, which is a collective refusal of labor as an industrial action, does not always constitute the crime of interference with business. Considering the circumstances and circumstances before and after, it is reasonable to deem that the employer’s free will on the continuation of business can be deemed to constitute crime of interference with business only in cases where it can be deemed that the employer’s free will on the continuation of business may be subject to suppression and confusion due to the fact that the refusal of collective labor provision constitutes force.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do482 Decided March 17, 2011). 2. First, we examine the Defendant D’s obstruction of business on September 8, 2009 and obstruction of business on September 16, 2009 against Defendant F.

Although the lower court somewhat different grounds for determination on the grounds that the strike cannot be deemed as a threat of force on the crime of interference with business, the lower court neglected this part of the facts charged without justifiable grounds.