The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant negotiated on and before October 25, 2008, the term of validity of the former collective agreement between social welfare foundation E (hereinafter “E”) in which he/she is a representative and the former North Korean General Labor Union of the former North Korean Headquarters (hereinafter “former Labor Union”), it cannot be deemed that the automatic renewal clause of Article 2 of the Addenda of the former collective agreement is applied and the collective agreement with the same content as the former collective agreement is concluded, and it is reasonable to deem that the former collective agreement remains in force until a new collective agreement is concluded pursuant to the automatic extension clause of Article 1(3) of the Addenda of the former collective agreement after the term of validity of the former collective agreement expires.

Therefore, the validity of the former collective agreement remains effective only until December 12, 2013, where E entered into a new collective agreement (hereinafter “new collective agreement”) with the Korean Labor Union E branch (hereinafter “Korean Labor Union E”) of the Korean Labor Union E (hereinafter “Korean Labor Union E”), and the Defendant is not obligated to perform the obligation under the former collective agreement thereafter.

Ultimately, the Defendant’s act, such as the facts charged after the collective agreement became invalidated, does not constitute a violation of Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 92 Subparag. 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

B. On December 12, 2013, E entered into a new collective agreement with the labor union of the Republic of Korea on December 12, 2013, following the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows, and its effect has been neglected to a democratic labor union, and the new collective agreement constitutes a renewal agreement, the former collective agreement was amended or amended.

In this respect, the defendant's act does not constitute a violation of Article 109 (1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 92 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

C. Even if the effect of the former collective agreement has been maintained even when the crime of this case was committed, the former collective agreement is deemed to be a collective agreement through the investigation or verification procedure, such as legal advice, etc.