[1] Requirements for an industrial action by a worker to be a justifiable act under the Criminal Act

[2] Whether the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action can be recognized in a case where the industrial action is conducted for the purpose of substantially opposing the implementation of the industrial action (negative with qualification)

[3] The standards for determining the legitimacy of the entire industrial action in a case where there are many purposes pursuing the industrial action and some of them are not justifiable

[4] The case where workers' refusal to provide labor constitutes the crime of interference with business

[5] The meaning of "safety protection facilities" under Article 42 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and the standard for determining whether to fall under such facilities

[6] Whether a violation of Article 91 subparag. 1 and Article 42(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is established in a case where there is no danger to human life or body due to the act of suspending, discontinuing, or obstructing the maintenance and operation of a safety protection facility (negative)

[7] The case reversing the judgment of conviction on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the facilities of the said heat-combined power plant fall under safety protection facilities under Article 42(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, or that workers interfere with the maintenance and operation of the said facilities, thereby causing danger to human life or body, in a case where the facilities of the said power plant were put in operation due to the strike for the purpose of opposing the promotion of privatization of the said heat-combined

[1] Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Articles 4 and 37 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Articles 4 and 37 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 31 of the Labor Standards Act / [3] Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Articles 4 and 37 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [4] Article 314 of the Criminal Act, Article 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [5] Article 42 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [6] Article 42 (2) and Article 91 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [7] Article 42 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

［1］ 대법원 1998. 1. 20. 선고 97도588 판결 (공1998상, 636) 대법원 2001. 10. 25. 선고 99도4837 전원합의체 판결 (공2001하, 2624) 대법원 2003. 11. 13. 선고 2003도687 판결 (공2003하, 2397) ［2］［3］ 대법원 2002. 2. 26. 선고 99도5380 판결 (공2002상, 1290) 대법원 2003. 2. 28. 선고 2002도5881 판결 ［2］ 대법원 2003. 7. 22. 선고 2002도7225 판결 (공2003하, 1798) 대법원 2003. 12. 26. 선고 2001도3380 판결 (공2004상, 281) ［3］ 대법원 2001. 6. 26. 선고 2000도2871 판결 (공2001하, 1785) 대법원 2003. 12. 26. 선고 2001도1863 판결 (공2004상, 277) ［4］ 대법원 1991. 4. 23. 선고 90도2771 판결 (공1991, 1552) 대법원 2004. 5. 27. 선고 2004도689 판결 ［5］ 대법원 2005. 9. 30. 선고 2002두7425 판결 (공2005하, 1706)

Defendant 1 and nine others

Defendants

Law Firm General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Nam-nam et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2002No1897 delivered on October 2, 2002

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion on obstruction of business

A. In order for an industrial action to be a justifiable act under the Criminal Act, the first person shall be a party to collective bargaining. Second, the purpose of the industrial action shall be to create autonomous negotiations between the labor and management to improve working conditions. Third, an employer shall commence collective bargaining with respect to specific demands for the improvement of working conditions of workers, unless there are special circumstances, but shall undergo the procedure prescribed by the law, such as the decision of the union members' consent. Fourth, the means and method should be in harmony with the employer's property rights, as well as the exercise of violence. (See Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Do488 delivered on January 20, 199, Supreme Court Decision 9Do4837 delivered on October 25, 201, etc.). It shall be determined that the industrial action should not be conducted for 200 or 200 justifiable if it is deemed that there are no justifiable reasons for the industrial action to be conducted for 20 or 200 unlawful reasons. (See Supreme Court Decision 208Do6837 delivered on October 25, 20001).

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below recognized that the defendants asserted the withdrawal of the policy of privatization over several times since the government's policy of privatization was established, and the government's policy of privatization of the co-owned power plant has been promoted unsatisfyly, the strike of this case, claiming that it was difficult to accommodate the demand from the Corporation, and that the strike of this case, the main purpose of which is the opposition to privatization, is not legitimate. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the court below's findings of fact and decision are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the legitimacy of industrial action, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. Even if a worker who entered into an employment contract with the employer did not provide labor in violation of his/her own contract, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a crime of interference with business, separate from the fact that the worker is liable for nonperformance of the employment contract. However, if multiple workers refuse to provide labor, such as collectively leaving the workplace or absent from work under mutual communication, thereby impairing the normal operation of the business, such as production, sale, etc. of the employer, unless the act is justified as a legitimate industrial action under the labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, it constitutes a crime of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2771, Apr. 23, 191; 2004Do689, May 27, 2004).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the decision of the court below is just in holding that the defendants' act of refusing work based on collective agricultural nature constitutes obstruction of business by force as a means of industrial action with improper purposes like the strike in this case, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of obstruction of business as otherwise alleged in the ground

2. As to the assertion on violation of the Integrated Energy Supply Act

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records, the strike of this case recognized that it interferes with the integrated energy supply of the instant heat-combined power plant, and that the strike of this case is not justified and its illegality is not dismissed. Accordingly, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of violating the Integrated Energy Supply Act is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to the assertion on the provisional illegality

As seen earlier, insofar as the Defendants were to participate in the strike that the objective of which is not legitimate, and refuse or not return to work based on collective agricultural nature as a means of industrial action, thereby hindering their duties by force and hindering the integrated supply of energy at the instant heat-combined power plant, it cannot be said that the Defendants were not subject to punishment solely on the grounds that the Defendants participated in the strike in accordance with the result of supporting and opposing votes on industrial actions by all union members and the direction of the executive body of the trade union. Accordingly, the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

4. As to the assertion on violation of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

A. The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the issue of whether a specific facility in a workplace constitutes a "safety protection facility" under Article 42 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter the "Labor Act") shall be determined on the basis of whether there is a danger or injury to human life or body by examining specifically and comprehensively the overall circumstances of the workplace in question, taking into account the following factors. Thus, the court below found the defendants guilty of the violation of the Labor Union Act against the defendants, on the ground that it constitutes a "safety protection facility" under Article 42 (2) of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, where the power plant, such as the power generator, boiler, fire-fighting water supply facilities, water-supply equipment such as plant, compressions, and instrument air supply facilities, etc. are suspended, abolished, or obstructed by industrial action, and thus, it may cause considerable harm to human life or body.

B. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 42(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission Act provides that "any act of suspending, discontinuing, or obstructing the normal maintenance and operation of facilities installed to protect safety of a workplace shall not be conducted as an industrial action." The term "safety protection facilities" refers to facilities necessary for preventing any danger to people's life or body or for hygiene, and the issue of whether such facilities are applicable shall be determined by specifically and comprehensively taking into account all circumstances, such as the nature of the workplace in question, the function of the facilities in question, the risks that may occur when the facilities are not normally maintained and operated (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7425 delivered on September 30, 2005).

Meanwhile, considering the fact that the legislative purpose of Article 42(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act is “safety of human life and body” and Article 42(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act as the constituent elements of this crime, where the maintenance, operation of safety protection facilities has been suspended, discontinued, or obstructed formally, but it does not cause any danger to human life and body at all due to such act, the crime of violation of Article 91 subparag. 1 and Article 42(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act shall not be established.

According to the records, the prosecutor, as stated in the facts charged of this case, found that the aforementioned facilities were used as water supply facilities, such as electricity power plants, boiler facilities, fire fighting water supply facilities, and air supply facilities for instruments, etc. to the Ministry of Labor as safe protection facilities stipulated in Article 42(2) of the Labor Act. There were statements from the head of the Gu/U.S. office’s personnel labor team director, non-indicted 1, the head of the Corporation’s head office, and non-indicted 2, respectively, to find that the above facilities were installed to prevent harm to human life or body for any reason, and it is difficult for the prosecutor to find that the above facilities were installed at the 0-month time when the above facilities were installed, and that there was no danger that the Defendants’ fire or explosion of boiler and steam supply facilities were suspended from their respective facilities under the circumstances where the power plant was operated, and that there was no danger that the existing facilities were operated during the 0-month period after the removal of heat supply facilities to the public.

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated further on what grounds the above heat-combined power plant facilities, which are cited in the facts charged, are facilities to prevent harm to human life and body, which are specifically dangerous facilities, whether the above heat-combined power plant facilities are used to take safety measures necessary to stop operation of the above heat-combined power plant facilities, and what risks the human life and body may be caused by the interruption of operation of the above heat-combined power plant facilities, and whether a facility receiving steam from the above heat-combined power plant causes harm to human life and body because it was not supplied with steam at the scheduled time, and then should have examined whether the crime of violation of Article 91 subparagraph 1 and Article 42 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act can be established. However, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion and found guilty of this part of the crime without mentioning the facts in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, or the misapprehension of legal principles as to "safety protection facilities" as defined in Article 42 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which violated the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act against the defendants should be reversed as it is unlawful, and so long as the above part of the judgment of the court below is in a mutually competitive relationship with the remaining part which was found guilty, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in its entirety.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)