The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant’s refusal of the instant dispatch ought to be deemed as an act of controlling and changing the operation of a trade union by imposing economic pressure on the union members by not being provided with labor by some union members and not paying wages accordingly. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the employer who has been engaged in the taxi transport business using 26 full-time workers as the representative director of (oil)D.

The Defendant, even though 26 members of the headquarters in the North Korean Trade Union, which took place from October 1, 201 to July 10, 2012, decided to return to work on the part of the Defendant, including the Defendant, even though 26 members, including the above F, etc., expressed their intention to return to work, the Defendant, without good cause, failed to assign 26 employees, including the above F, from July 16, 201 to September 11, 2012, thereby preventing them from returning to work.

B. In addition to the facts and circumstances described in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below (as of February 1, 2012, the company of this case was notified by the court below that the company of this case will terminate the employment relationship if it did not return to work through the certification of the content of February 1, 2012, and that the labor union of this case and its employees did not express any position on the part of the labor union of this case and its employees under Article 660(2) of the Civil Act.