beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant I, H, A, C, and B are executives of the MM trade union (hereinafter “instant trade union”) headquarters or N Headquarters, and merely made a tour at the place of business for the purpose of verifying and proving the employer’s unfair labor practices. Thus, it cannot be said that there was a conspiracy with other Defendants to interfere with the business.
B. The head of the Organizational Technology Headquarters S tried to advance the strike of the instant trade union as a day and to educate its members at the P Office about their participation in the strike. This constitutes an unfair labor practice provided by Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and thus, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes an act subject to protection under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, it does not constitute a constituent element.
C. Since S’s act constitutes unfair labor practice, even if the Defendants resisted against it constitutes an element of the crime of interference with business, it constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.
Each punishment of the lower court (each of 500,000 won of a fine) shall be excessively unreasonable.
2. The summary of the facts charged in this case was dismissed from the Corporation as the Director-General of the NM Trade Union N Headquarters, and Defendant B was dismissed from the Corporation as the Director-General of the NN Headquarters of the MM Trade Union. Defendant C was dismissed from the Corporation as the dismissed Director-General of the NN Headquarters of the MM Trade Union; Defendant C as the dismissed director-general of the P branch of the MM trade union; Defendant E as the dismissed director-general of the P branch of the MM union; Defendant F as the dismissed director-general of the P branch of the M trade union P branch of the MM union; Defendant H as the dismissed director-general of the P branch of the MM union; Defendant H as the dismissed director-general of the MM trade union NN branch of the MM trade union; Defendant J as the dismissed director-general of the MM trade union; Defendant J is an engineer of the MMN branch of the Q branch of the Q branch of the Trade Union; and Co-Defendant
Defendants and K. H.