Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Forms of correspondence

(Law Firm Females, Attorneys Kim Seon-soo et al.)

Suwon District Court Decision 2001Gohap7648 Delivered on December 12, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 5,00,000 and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000, respectively.

In the event that the defendants fail to pay the above fines, the defendants shall be confined in the old house for a period of 30,000 won converted into one day: Provided, That the fractional amount shall be one day.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be calculated by including 57 days in the period of detention in each workhouse.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and their defense counsel

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

First, the main purpose of the strike of this case is not to withdraw the government's privatization plan, but to maintain and improve working conditions, to guarantee the employment of union members. Thus, the strike of this case is legitimate in its purpose. Second, the strike of this case merely refuses to provide labor at an assembly outside the place of business and passively, it is merely a failure to comply with labor contract, and it does not constitute "defluence" of the crime of interference with business. Third, water supply facilities, such as electric power facilities such as a heat-combined power plant, boiler facilities, fire-fighting water supply facilities, etc., water compression equipment such as plant facilities, etc., fire-fighting water supply facilities, and air supply facilities for instruments cannot be deemed as a safety protection facility under Article 42 (2) of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Fourth, Article 54 (3) and (2) of the Integrated Energy Supply Act does not prohibit legitimate industrial actions. Nevertheless, the judgment below convicting the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the circumstances of each of the instant crimes, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles

In light of the records, the court below compiled and reviewed various evidences legitimately examined and adopted by the court below. First, the defendants asserted withdrawal of the policy of privatization over several occasions since the government's policy of privatization was established, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the strike in this case was conducted for the purpose of opposing the implementation of privatization. The main purpose of industrial action is to create autonomous negotiations between the labor and management for the maintenance and improvement of working conditions. Thus, the strike in this case, which is the main purpose of the strike in this case, is not legitimate for that purpose. Second, if multiple workers are not a legitimate industrial action, absent from one's workplace in group under mutual contact, thereby hindering the normal business of the employer, it constitutes a crime of interference with business through multiple force. Third, the issue of whether a specific facility in the workplace constitutes a safety protection facility is a concrete and comprehensive review of all the circumstances of the workplace in question, and thus, it can be determined in accordance with the legal principles as to whether there is any interference with the supply of water or water supply facilities, such as heat power plant and electricity, and so it can be found that there is no interference with the above decision.

B. The point of unfair sentencing

In light of various circumstances, including the following: Defendant 1 did not have previous conviction or heavier punishment; Defendant 2 did not have any record of criminal punishment; Defendant 2 did not have any record of criminal punishment; the Defendants committed each of the crimes in this case in the course of seeking dispute over the rights and interests of workers, such as the separation and sale of heat-combined power plants and succession of employment, in line with the direction of privatization; the Corporation agreed with the labor union; the Defendants withdraw the complaint against the Defendants; and the Defendants wished to have their employment; the Defendants lost their employment on the grounds of each of the crimes in this case for a long period of time; and it seems too harsh to have lost their employment for each of the crimes in this case against the Defendants who were working at the Corporation. Considering the various circumstances, the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants is somewhat unreasonable, and therefore, it is reasonable to have discussed the above appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

As stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, the criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are all cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Each Integrated Energy Supply Act Article 54(3) and (2) of the same Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business) of the same Act, Article 91 subparag. 1 and Article 42(2) of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with Operation of Safety Protection Facilities in Places of Business)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 (Punishment for the crime of violating the Integrated Energy Supply Act and the crime of interference with business under paragraph (1) of the same Article on the crime of violating the Integrated Energy Supply Act and the crime of interference with business under the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and the crime of interference with business under the same Act, which are more severe punishment

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment for Crimes provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment for Crimes)

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

Judges Yang Jin-hun (Presiding Judge) Order of the Order of Merit;