beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of a defense counsel’s written reasons for appeal filed on April 24, 2018, and the written reasons for appeal filed on July 24, 2018, after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and to the extent of supplement in case of a written reasons for appeal filed on March 21, 2018).
A. A. A common principal offender of an identification crime is established when a person who is not a new person was involved in the crime of an identification crime. In this case, it is limited to a person who was not a non-identification and was involved in an act that does not constitute a crime of a defendant, and the defendant does not have been involved in the crime of a defendant C, and the defendant does not constitute a common principal offender with C
B. The Defendant, as a member of a trade union B (hereinafter “instant trade union”), only made independent and leading activities to clarify the corruption of the executive body of the trade union and to reform it, and the Defendant’s e-mail exchange with the Defendant is merely merely that the Defendant sought a pro-friendly opinion to C and gave advice to the Defendant. As such, it does not constitute “an act of participating in the operation of a trade union by an employee” under Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Labor Union Act”).
2. Determination
A. Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Labor Union Act prohibits a person who violates Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Labor Union Act, thereby punishing a person who violates Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Labor Union Act, from engaging in unfair labor practices involving an employer to operate a trade union, constitutes a genuine personal identity crime in which only a person who has an employer’s status can be a principal offender.
Meanwhile, the main text of Article 33 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act processed in a crime to be established due to a personal relation shall be applied to a person who has no personal relation," and this does not constitute an identification offense independently by a person who is not a person who is not a new one, but jointly with a person who is not a new one.