The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the defendant was fully aware of the fact that the victim trade union requested bargaining E, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on different premise. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the records, we examine the evidence of this case in detail in light of the records, and (1) a trade union, which exists only in a business or workplace unit, has gone through the procedures prescribed by the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Labor Union Act”) and its Enforcement Decree.

Even if it is reasonable to interpret that the status of a representative trade union cannot be acquired (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Du36956, Oct. 31, 2017). Even if a trade union, which was in place of business at the time E, determined the victim trade union as a representative trade union through the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows under the Labor Union Act and entered into an organization agreement (wages agreement) which takes effect as of March 1, 2015, the victim trade union could not acquire the status of representative trade union since the victim trade union was oiled by the victim trade union, and ② the entire content and purport of the letter message sent by the defendant did not follow the procedures for determining the representative trade union under the Labor Union Act and its Enforcement Decree. Accordingly, since October 14, 2015, the victim trade union acquired the status of representative trade union through the procedures for determining the representative trade union under the Labor Union Act and its Enforcement Decree.

Considering the absence of sufficient evidence, it is difficult for the lower court to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was false, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, even if it is false.