209Do7865 A. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion)

(b) Interference with business;

(c) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

**********************

Seoul National State of Residence

Seoul State of State of State of State in Seoul

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Young-chul, Park Young-chul, Park Young-chul, Park Young-gu,

Mag Tae-Gyeong, Park Ham, Ewn fever, Mawn

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008No1803 Decided July 8, 2009

March 11, 2010

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the co-existence of a structure

가. 원심이 유지하고 있는 제1심은, 먼저, ( 주 ) * * * 은 * * * 비정규지부 조합원에 대하여 직접적인 근로관계에 기한 사용자이거나 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법 상의 사용자에 해당하므로, ( 주 ) * * * 은 * * * 비정규지부나 그 위임을 받은 자들에 대하여 단체교섭의무를 부담한다고 판단한 다음, 이어서, 피고인 등이 농성을 한 이 사건 로비는 ( 주 ) * * * ( 21층 건물 중 2층부터 11층 사용 ) 과 ( 주 ) 한國國國 [ 현재 상호는 ( 한 주 ) 이다, 12층부터 21층 사용 ) 가 공동으로 사용하는 공간인 사실, 위 로비는 700 ~ 800명 정도가 들어갈 수 있는 넓은 공간으로 한쪽에 안내데스크, 고객대기실이 있고 일반 사무실은 없는 사실, ( 주 ) * * * ○○○출장소와 장비실험실은 신관 1층과 연결된 본관 1층에 위치해 있고 이 사건 로비를 지나 경비 직원이 있는 문을 통과하여야만 출입할 수 있는 사실, 피고인 등은 이 사건 로비 중 중간 부분 일부를 점거하며 선전전, 강연, 토론 등의 방법으로 농성한 사실, 한 ( 주 ) 나 ( 주 ) * * * 에 출입하는 직원, 일반 고객은 피고인 등의 점거로 인하여 통행을 방해받지 아니한 사실을 인정한 다음, 비록 피고인 등이 피해자 ( 주 ) 한▩▩▩▩의 의사에 반하여 이 사건 로비에 들어갔다고 하더라도, 위 인정 사실에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피고인 등은 ( 주 ) * * * 이 * * * 비정규지부 조합원에 대한 사용자가 아니라며 단체교섭을 거부하여 찬반투표를 통해 파업을 선언하고 쟁의행위에 들어간 점, 이 사건 로비의 점거는 그 쟁의행위의 한 방법인 점, 피고인 등은 이 사건 로비의 일부를 점거하였고 ( 주 ) 한國國國圖나 ( 주 ) * * * 에 출입하는 직원, 일반 고객의 통행은 방해받지 아니한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 등의 이 사건 로비 침입은 정당한 쟁의행위 중에 이루어진 것으로 형법 제20조 정당행위에 해당하여 위법성이 조각된다는 이유로 피고인이 ( 주 ) 한國國國圖가 관리하는 건조물에 침입하였다는 이 사건 공소사실을 무죄로 인정하였다 .

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above measures of the court below.

1) Where two or more persons live together in a single space, each person’s right to enjoy peace in his/her own residence, and the employer uses a space for management and use jointly with a third party.

In a case where an act of dispute against a manager is committed and occupied against the will of the manager, the occupation of the space may be evaluated as a legitimate industrial action in relation to the user, even if there is room to view it as a legitimate industrial action, so long as there is no explicit or presumed consent from the third party who jointly manages and uses it, it cannot be deemed that the illegality of entering a residence by deeming it as a justifiable act is excluded.

2) According to the judgment of the court of first instance that the court below maintained, the waterway of this case occupied by the defendant et al. is a space for the co-management of the country of Korea, a third party (state), and according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court of first instance, the waterway of this case, which the defendant et al. al. epid, was part of the building for the business of this case on the 21st floor size owned by the national map of Korea (state), ** * * while leasing and using the 2nd to 11th floor in the building for the business of this case and using the 12th to 21st floor, jointly with the country of Korea (state) where the defendant et al. used the road of this case with the 12th to 21st floor, and the road of this case was a space for the wide area of 700 to 800 people air spaces, and the fact that the defendant et al. was not informed of the noise frame of this case outside the police entrance.

3) If the circumstances are the same, it is apparent that the act of the Defendant, etc. by intrusion on the instant waterway and occupying it against the intent of the manager of the said street, including the Korean flag map. Thus, in light of the above legal principles, even if there is room to evaluate the above act by the Defendant, etc. as a legitimate industrial action in relation to the relationship with *** even if there is room to judge that the above act by the Defendant, etc. is a legitimate industrial action in relation to ?), it cannot be said that the illegality as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act is denied as a legitimate act.

4) Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of entering the common structure of this case on the ground that the occupation of this case was just in relation to the relation with the country of Korea (state). The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the obstruction of illegality of industrial action, etc., or by failing to properly examine this case.

2. As to interference with business

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is justified in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the facts charged in the obstruction of business of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and any violation of the rules of

3. Scope of reversal

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the facts charged of entering a common building becomes unable to continue to be maintained without any further review as to the remainder of the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor. Since the above crime is concurrent crimes between the remaining facts charged and the facts charged under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in its entirety (Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8424 of May 11, 2007) and Article 10 of the main sentence of Article 23, Paragraph 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8424 of May 11, 2007), it shall be pointed out that the Constitutional Court Decision 2008HunGa25 decided September 24, 2009, which does not conform with the Constitution.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn

Justices Yang Sung-tae

Justices Kim Ji-hyung

Justices Yang Chang-soo