All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant A does not correspond to “employer” as prescribed by the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), and ② Defendant A’s speech to G as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below merely takes place during the course of consultation and does not constitute an act of controlling or intervening in the organization and operation of a trade union. ③ Article 94 of the Trade Union Act is a joint penal provision against the principle of responsibility and is unconstitutional. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The respective sentence of the court below on the defendants of unfair sentencing (the fine of three million won per fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles includes “employer” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Trade Union Act as well as “person in charge of business management” or “person acting for a business owner with respect to matters relating to workers at the business.” The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, Defendant A, as the head of the Daejeon project team of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), is in charge of the overall duties of E and F in Daejeon, and is in charge of personnel affairs of the employees at the level below the head of the department or below, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion in this part is without merit.

The following circumstances are established according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether it constitutes control or intervention.