All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle) did not recognize the legitimacy of the purpose of the strike of this case, but the court below omitted the fact-finding on the purpose of the strike, and determined that the loss did not occur on the basis of the amount reduced in personnel expenses for the strike workers in accordance with the principle of no labor-free wages.

Although the Defendants did not recognize the legitimacy of the purpose, the Defendants engaged in the instant strike at a time when the company could not predict without undergoing the conciliation procedure as prescribed by the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and thereby resulting in a serious confusion or enormous damage to the business operation of the private sector, the lower court acquitted the Defendants, despite the fact that the Defendants’ above act constitutes the crime of interference with business by force.

Therefore, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with business is established when a person interferes with another person’s business by deceptive means or force.

(Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act). The term "power of force" means all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person's free will.

Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), as an industrial action that obstructs the normal operation of business by refusing to provide labor for the purpose of accomplishing his/her claim, is not merely an omission of refusing to provide labor under a labor contract, but also an exercise of the power to collectively suspend the provision of labor to accomplish his/her claim by imposing pressure on the employer. As such, the elements constituting force

However, there is an inherent limit that workers can be limited on the grounds of public interest such as national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare in accordance with Article 37(2) of the Constitution, and that the exercise of their rights should be legitimate.