(a) Whether an act of interference with business by multiple power, in a case where many workers refuse to provide labor on a lump sum without the purpose of an industrial action, thereby impeding normal operation of business (affirmative);

(b) The case holding that it is difficult to find it difficult to constitute interference with business by force immediately because the chairperson of a company which has joined a trade union by 29 of the total 50 workers has operated one member with other two members and retired early at least three hours;

A. If multiple workers refuse to provide labor on a lump sum basis or absence from work under mutual communication for other purposes than the purpose of industrial action, such as the maintenance or improvement of working conditions, and thereby hindering the normal operation of their business, this constitutes an act of interference with multiple force. In this case, collective action by many workers becomes a force under Article 314 of the Criminal Act, i.e., a force under Article 314 of the Criminal Act.

B. The power stipulated in Article 314 of the Criminal Act is not limited to assault or intimidation, but refers to the power that can suppress a person’s free will. As such, 29 of the total 50 workers joined a trade union. The production workers joined a trade union by 29 of the 28-29 company’s labor union with one member of the 28-29 company’s labor union, together with other two members, cannot be said to constitute a case where the labor union’s early retirement of 3 hours is sufficient to constitute a crime of force or interference with business by force.

Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 90No2546 delivered on December 5, 1990

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the record, the lower court accepted the first instance judgment, and recognized that the Defendant, as the chairperson of the trade union of Nonindicted 1’s company, jointly with Nonindicted 2 and 3, operated by Nonindicted 1, the Defendant left the same trade union between 13:30 on May 3, 1990 and 16:30 on May 3, 199 and 19:30 on the pretext that Nonindicted 4 was replaced by the same trade union and was present at the labor relations assembly held at Busan University, thereby obstructing Nonindicted 1’s product production business by force, and the Defendant applied Article 3

2. If multiple workers refuse to provide labor on a lump sum basis or absence from work under mutual communication for other purposes than the purpose of industrial action, such as the maintenance or improvement of working conditions, and thereby hindering the normal operation of their business, this constitutes an act of interference with multiple force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2852, Jan. 23, 191). In such a case, collective action by a majority of workers becomes a force under Article 314 of the Criminal Act, i.e., the power under Article 314 of the Criminal Act.

3. The power under Article 314 of the Criminal Act is not limited to violence or intimidation, but refers to the power to suppress a person’s free will. As such, in order to establish the crime of interference with business by force, the Defendant’s act of operating Nonindicted 4 on behalf of Nonindicted 4 and early retirement from Nonindicted 4 should be the same meaning or the equivalent degree of force, and thereby, there should be a criminal intent to obstruct the normal operation of the company’s business.

4. However, it is difficult for the defendant or non-indicted 2 and 3 to constitute a case where the defendant or non-indicted 4, who is the same trade union, was voluntarily set off for three hours at an early stage in order to attend a labor-related assembly, and it constitutes a case where the defendant's or non-indicted 2 and 3's business

Upon examining the records, the above company is an enterprise producing the brake system, which is a rolling stock attached to the rolling stock, 50 employees including 2 female workers, and 29 employees in the labor union, and 28-29 employees in the production sector are 28-29 (the above company's statement of the head of the judicial police unit, each statement of the name of the head, each of the name of the head, each of the name of the public prosecutor, the statement of the non-indicted 1 in the preparation of the public prosecutor, and the forecast of corporate

If there are special circumstances to deem that the aforementioned early retirement of Samsung Company’s Samsung Company’s work or work content, in light of the duties or work ratio occupied by the Defendant, Nonindicted 2, 3, or Nonindicted 4 in the company company’s business, or due to other special circumstances, the court below may examine and confirm the aforementioned circumstances within the scope of the prosecution, and determine whether the Defendant’s act constitutes the crime of interference with business by force. However, there are no indications on such special circumstances.

5. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of interference with business, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, thereby finding the fact of interference with business by force. The scope of this issue is justified.

6. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)