beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) four workers, who participated in the act of dispute under the lead of the defendant, who is the head of the Trade Union and ConstructionD (hereinafter “instant workplace”) in the Korean Railroad Corporation D shop (hereinafter “instant workplace”), have interfered with the maintenance and operation of the vehicle tallying service and caused danger to the lives, health, or physical safety of the public and daily life.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Even if the suspension, discontinuance, or interference with the maintenance and operation of the essential business, if there is no danger to the lives, health, or physical safety of the general public, or daily life of the general public, the crime of interference with the operation of the essential business is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17326, Apr. 12, 2016). (b) According to the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, the fact that G, H, I, and J were designated as the essential maintenance business operator in charge of the vehicle inspection of the instant place of business (hereinafter referred to as “essential business operator”), and the fact that the essential business operator took part in the dispute at a restaurant located within the instant place in the instant place of business, regardless of all of the essential business operators, is recognized.
(c)
However, the determination of the occurrence of danger to the life, physical safety, or daily life of the general public ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the nature of the workplace in question, the function of the essential business in question, and the risks that may arise when the essential business in question is not maintained and operated normally (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5428, May 25, 2006). In such a case, the court below, based on the records cited by the court below as the grounds for denying the occurrence of danger, shall be able to find out the circumstances described in paragraphs (1) through (4).