The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to the error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (as to the obstruction of business from November 5, 2009 to November 6, 2009 and obstruction of business from November 26, 2009 to December 3, 2009, which was found guilty among the facts charged in the instant case), the part which cites the entries concerning the defendant's criminal records in the instant indictment concerning the facts constituting the crime, entries without relation to the facts constituting the crime, or documentary evidence, among the facts charged in the instant indictment, shall hinder the judge from forming a prejudice and understanding the substance of the crime, and the evidence is presented in advance before the examination of evidence is conducted. This constitutes a violation of Article 254(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the principle of an indictment only, and Article 118(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, and the procedure of prosecution in the instant case shall be null and void in violation of the provisions of law.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the principle of an indictment only.

The investigation of this case by misapprehending the legal principles as to the abuse of prosecution discretion is initiated by a political intent and unreasonable planning in accordance with the president’s unilateral direction. Thus, the prosecution accordingly constitutes abuse of prosecution power and thus the validity of prosecution should be denied.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of the discretionary power.

⑶ 사실오인 내지 업무방해죄에 관한 법리오해 ㈎ 피고인의 이 사건 각 행위는 단순한 노무제공거부에 불과하고, 사용자가 예측할 수 없는 시기에 전격적으로 이루어져 사용자의 사업운영에 심대한 혼란 내지 막대한 손해를 초래한 바도 없어 위력에 해당하지 않으므로 피고인의 이 사건 각 노무제공거부 행위에 대하여 업무방해죄가 성립되지 아니하고, 기본권으로 보장된 근로자의 쟁의행위 자체를 업무방해죄로 처벌하는 것은 헌법이...