A. Whether an industrial action constitutes the crime of interference with business under Article 314 of the Criminal Act beyond the scope of legitimacy (negative)

B. Whether the crime of interference with business may be conducted in the form of a co-principal under the direction of the executive officers of the trade union (affirmative)

A. The same holds true even if an industrial action, which goes beyond the scope of legitimacy and thereby interferes with another’s business by force under Article 314 of the Criminal Act, is sufficient to bring about the risk of interference with business even if the actual interference with business did not occur, and the industrial action itself has a collective nature and collective nature.

B. The crime of interference with business may be conducted in the form of a co-principal under the direction of the executive officers of the trade union.

(b)Article 20, Article 314 of the Criminal Code, Article 2 of the Trade Union Act, Article 3 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Do1431 delivered on October 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 2334) (Gong1991, 1959), 91Do304 delivered on April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1639), Supreme Court Decision 90Do2771 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong191, 152)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Incheon District Court Decision 91No1064 delivered on April 23, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the law of the court below.

2. In full view of the evidence cited by the court below, each of the facts of the crime of this case is found to have interfered with various business activities of the above union by exercising power by using force, such as gathering 16 members or more who are less than 16 members of the labor union in the working hours or in collusion with other members of the medical insurance association in Incheon or in close vicinity of them, and raising relief and labor prices, etc. by using force as a means of gathering 16 members or more who are less likely to engage in industrial action, and 160 members who are often engaged in industrial action. The above acts of the defendants are deemed to interfered with property rights such as exclusive and exclusive facilities, or various business activities of the above union as acts of violence, which are not legally permitted even if they were industrial action. It shall be deemed to have interfered with a person's business by force under Article 314 of the Criminal Act.

In this case, even if the result of interference with business actually did not occur, the risk of interference with business is sufficient and thus, it cannot be permitted under the social norms, so the illegality cannot be deemed as a legitimate labor union activity, and the industrial action itself does not constitute a legitimate labor union activity. This is also the same in light of the fact that the industrial action itself is spreading collectiveity and collective nature.

Therefore, it is proper that the court below held that the defendants and the above union members' act of occupying the office of the medical insurance association entirely or exclusively by exercising their power above constitutes a violation of the Criminal Act and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as it goes beyond the justifiable scope of the industrial action, and it does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of legitimacy of the industrial action, such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. In addition, the defendants argued that they participated in legitimate industrial actions as labor union members, and even though they did not actually commit an illegal act, the court below's action which found the defendants guilty on the basis of the obstruction of business under the Criminal Act, not the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on "the principle of criminal responsibility" or "the principle of self-responsibility", which is the principle of the mediation of labor disputes or criminal liability. However, even if an industrial action goes beyond the legitimate scope, the illegality is not avoided, and the crime of interference with business can be committed in the form of joint principal offender by the instruction of the labor union division (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2771 delivered on April 23, 191). Thus, the court below's action which recognized the facts of crime by the conspiracy of the defendants cannot be deemed unlawful, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the penal provisions of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.