Defendant 1 and four others

Kim Byung-Appellee (prosecutions) and full-time (trials)

Law Firm Jin, Attorney Kim Sung-jin in charge

Defendant 1 is punished by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for 10 months, by imprisonment for 4 months, by imprisonment for 8 months, and by imprisonment for 5 months, respectively.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendants shall be subject to probation and each community service order for 200 hours.

"2014 Highest 1696"

피고인 1은 ▲▲▲▲▲ 소속 근로자로서 ○○○○ 산하 △△△△노동조합 □□□□□□□□지부 ◇◇◇◇☆☆☆(이하 ‘☆☆☆지회’라 한다) 지회장이고, 피고인 2는 ▷▷▷▷에서 해고된 후 ▲▲▲▲▲에서 근무하고 있는 근로자로서 위 ☆☆☆지회 교육선전차장이고, 피고인 3은 ■■■■■ 소속 근로자로서 위 ☆☆☆지회 조합원이다.

피고인들은 위 ☆☆☆지회 근로자들이 근무하고 있는 ◎◎◎◎, ◁◁◁◁◁, ▷▷▷▷ 등 ▽▽ ▽▽ 소재 중장비 임대업체에서 단체협상을 제대로 진행하지 않고 근로자를 해고하고 부당 직장폐쇄를 했다는 이유 등으로 2014. 6. 5. 13:00경부터 ▽▽시 ▽▽▽▽ 인근에서 ○○○○ △△△△노조 □□□□□□□□지부 주최로 방송차량 50대, 인원 250명 등을 동원한 집회에 참가하였다.

피고인들은 위와 같이 집회에 참석하여 같은 날 15:30경 ▽▽시 ♤♤동에 있는 ♡♡화학 ●●●공장 중문 앞에서 집회를 하던 중, 위 ●●●공장 내부에서 ◎◎◎◎의 ☆☆☆로 대체근로를 하고 있는 피해자 공소외 1(남, 40세)을 발견하고 피해자에게 다가가 “우리는 어렵게 투쟁을 하고 있는데 너 혼자 잘 먹고 잘 살겠다고 대체근로를 하느냐, 잠시 얘기 좀 하자”고 하면서 피해자의 양팔을 붙잡아 집회 참가자들이 모여있는 중문 밖으로 끌어내려 하였다.

Therefore, when the victim gets away from the factory by spreading the defendants, the defendants got away from the factory, and the defendants got out the part of the victim's arms and neck beyond the miscellaneous bottom.

As a result, the Defendants jointly committed an injury to the victim, such as the full-scale escape of the first Daegu on the left-hand side, which requires about four weeks of treatment, and at the same time conspired to commit an act of violence, etc. as the participants in the assembly.

"2014 Highest 2251"

○○○○ △△△△노조 □□□□□□□□지부 소속 ◇◇◇◇ ☆☆☆지회는 2013. 10. 5.경 ▽▽★★에 있는 ▷▷▷▷ 등 15개 ☆☆☆업체 근로자 98명을 구성원으로 하여 출범한 후, 2013. 11.경부터 사측에 요구하던 임금인상 요구가 좌절되자, 2014. 3. 20.경부터 파업에 돌입하였다. 나아가 2014. 6. 2.경부터 6. 19.경까지 사이에 ☆☆☆지회 소속 노조원 공소외 3, 공소외 4가 ▽▽ ▼▼역 인근 송전탑을 점거하자, ○○○○ □□□□□□□□지부는 ◇◇◇◇ ☆☆☆지회를 원조할 목적으로, 송전탑 인근을 비롯한 10개 장소에서 집회를 개최하겠다고 신고한 후, ☆☆☆지회 노조원들을 동원하여 사측의 직장폐쇄, 근로자 해고를 규탄하는 집회를 개최하였다.

Defendant 4 was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with labor and two years of suspension of execution for the following reasons: ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, on November 17, 201, the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, etc. The judgment became final and conclusive on February 26, 201

피고인 4는 2014. 6. 5. 16:30경 ▽▽시 ◀◀동에 있는 피해자 공소외 5 운영의 ▷▷▷▷ 앞 도로에서, ○○○○ □□□□□□□□지부의 소속 단체인 ◇◇◇◇ ☆☆☆지회 노조원 50명과 함께 ▷▷▷▷ 등 사측의 직장폐쇄, 노조원 해고를 규탄하는 집회를 개최하였다. 피고인 4는 ☆☆☆지회 노조원들 사이에 ☆☆☆회사 대표들에 대한 불만이 고조되자, ☆☆☆지회 회장인 피고인 1에게 스프레이 페인트를 구입하도록 지시하였고, 피고인 1은 다시 피고인 3에게 지시하여 스프레이 페인트를 구입하였다. 피고인 4는 피고인 1에게 지시하여 위 스프레이 페인트를 노조원들에게 잘 보이는 장소에 비치함으로써 누구라도 위 페인트를 사용할 수 있도록 준비하였다. 피고인 4는 회사 대표들을 규탄하는 구호제창을 마치자, 노조원들에게 손짓하여 그들을 피해자 소유 컨테이너(크레인 부품 보관 창고로 사용) 앞으로 집결시켰고, 피고인 5는 피고인 4, 피고인 1이 지켜보는 가운데, 30분간 검은색과 붉은색 스프레이 페인트를 이용하여 컨테이너 벽면에 ‘사기꾼 도둑놈 공소외 5 좆같은 놈 죽어’라는 낙서를 하였으며, 피고인 3은 벽돌로 컨테이너 유리창 1장을 깨뜨렸다. 피고인 4는 피고인 5가 낙서하는 동안 방해받지 않게 할 의도로, ▽▽경찰서 수사과 소속 공소외 6의 몸을 팔로 가로막으며 현장 접근을 차단시켰다.

As a result, the Defendants jointly conspired to damage the containers owned by Non-Indicted 5 in a total amount of KRW 1,858,00,000, which is the repair cost, and committed an act that disturbs the order due to damage, etc.

"2014 Highest 1696"

1. The defendants' partial statement (a statement that the defendants suffered an injury in the course of arresting the non-indicted 1)

1. Legal statement of Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 7

1. The accusation letter and the injury diagnosis letter of Nonindicted Party 1

1. CCTV 화면 캡쳐, 피해자 사진, ♡♡화학 ●●● 중문 CCTV 동영상 CD

1. Written opinions and X-ray photographs;

"2014 Highest 2251"

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 9

1. On-site documentary evidence photographs, CCTV closures, damage estimates, and evidence photographs;

1. Evidentiary video CDs and evidence photographs;

1. A photo of the assembly site, on the face of the Do governor, a photo of the container, and a documentary evidence of the container;

1. Records before judgment: Criminal records;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1: Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint injury), Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of joint damage and destruction of property), Article 24 subparag. 5, Article 18(2), and Article 16(4)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of the code of practice by participants in an assembly);

○ Defendant 2: Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint injury) and Article 24 Subparag. 5, Article 18(2), Article 16(4)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of the code of practice by a participant in an assembly)

Defendant 3: Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint injury), Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of joint damage and destruction of property), Article 24 subparag. 5, Article 18(2), and Article 16(4)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of the code of practice by participants in an assembly);

○ Defendant 4: Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destruction and damage of public property), Articles 22(3) and 16(4)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of the code of practice by the organizer of the assembly)

○ Defendant 5: Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destruction and damage of common property), Article 24 subparag. 5, Article 18(2), and Article 16(4)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of the code of practice by a participant in an assembly)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the crime of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the punishment provided for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act with more severe punishment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act / [Mutual Crimes of the Punishment of Injury resulting from Special Obstruction of Official Duties, etc. against Defendant 4]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code (The following circumstances considered as favorable among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Probation and community service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. Defendants 1, 2, and 3

【Scope of Recommendation】

General Injury Injury> Type 1 (General Injury) : Reduction Area (2-1 year).

[Special Mitigation]

Where there is a reason to take special account of crimes;

[Determination of Sentence] Two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment for Defendant 1, and two years of suspended sentence for each of Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

○ favorable circumstances: The fact that the Defendants were the process of lawfully reported assemblies; the fact that they were actions to block them under the judgment that they were illegal substitution work; and the fact that they agreed with the employer.

○ Unfavorable normal circumstances: Although a legitimate assembly was lawful but an act of disturbing order, such as an injury to property, damage to property, etc., appears to have abused freedom of assembly and demonstration guaranteed.

2. Two years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 4 and two years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 5;

○ favorable circumstances: a legitimate assembly process; Defendant 4 had a relation of latter concurrent crimes with a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive; Defendant 4 did not significantly focus on the degree of damage to property; and Defendant agreed with an employer.

○ Unfavorable normal circumstances: Although it was a legitimate assembly but it seems that the act of disturbing order such as property damage, etc. is an abuse of freedom of assembly and demonstration guaranteed.

위 피고인들은 공소외 1에 대한 상해의 점은 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법(이하 ‘법’이라 한다) 제43조 를 위반한 현행범을 체포하기 위한 과정에서 발생한 것이므로 정당행위에 해당한다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 가사 공소외 1의 행위가 법 제43조 에 위반되는 대체근로라 할지라도 법 제43조 는 “사용자는 쟁의행위 기간 중 그 쟁의행위로 중단된 업무의 수행을 위하여 당해 사업과 관계없는 자를 채용 또는 대체할 수 없다”고 규정하고 있는 바, 위 규정 및 법 제91조 에 의하면 대체근로로 인하여 처벌되는 사람은 사용자일 뿐이다. 그런데 앞서 본 증거에 의하면 공소외 1은 ◎◎◎◎ 측 공소외 2의 지시에 따라 ☆☆☆를 운행하였던 사실이 인정되는 바 단지 근로자일 뿐인 공소외 1이 위 공소외 2와 공모하였다는 점을 인정할 증거가 없는 이상 법 위반에 따른 현행범이 될 수 없으므로 현행범 체포 과정에 일어난 상해는 정당행위라는 피고인 측의 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다(더욱이 피고인들이 공소외 1을 현행범으로 체포하는 과정이었다고 주장하나 공소외 1에게 어떤 죄명으로 현행범 체포하겠다는 고지를 한 적도 없다. 수사기관에 의한 체포가 아니어서 소위 미란다원칙을 전부 고지할 것까지 요구되지는 않는다 하더라도 현행범 체포과정은 통상적으로 물리적인 유형력의 행사가 동반된다 할 것이므로 최소한 현행범으로 체포한다는 고지는 있어야 일반적이 폭력행위와 구별될 수 있다 할 것이다).

Judges Choi Jong-soo