Defendant

All prosecutor's appeals against A, C and the above Defendants are dismissed.

Defendant

B. Regarding B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor Defendant A and C interfered with the work by violent means against several members and two members in order to prevent the meeting of the defective committee itself, and damaged entrance and windows in the course of intrusion into the meeting room. The form of the crime is violent and not poor.

In full view of these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment that imposed a fine of KRW 5 million on the above Defendants is excessively unhutiled and unreasonable.

B. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the damage of property, and demanding the Defendants to open doors from the number of union members and the corridor and stairs, but the Defendants did not know that the Defendants did not use the hacks to put the corrective device.

The establishment of a steel fighting entrance is a contingent act of certain members who are interested in the establishment of a steel fighting room, and the establishment of a glass room is not an intentional act in a complicated situation where members enter a meeting room and the body fighting is broken.

B) On the part of interference with business affairs, when considering the importance of collective agreements in labor-management relations as it violates the agreement entered into with a trade union, the scope of the business affairs of the G Disciplinary Committee cannot be deemed to be subject to protection of interference with business affairs. No other business than the business affairs of the disciplinary committee at the time

Even if the work of holding the disciplinary committee falls under the work subject to protection, the defendants' act was legitimate exercise of rights to prevent the holding of the disciplinary committee which clearly violates the collective agreement, and it is excluded from the illegality as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

2) The Defendants were found to have committed a crime with respect to the infringement of the structure.