All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (defendants) ① The Defendant has given a formal answer twice to several cases of e-mail sent by I who had no usual contact, but there is no fact that I supported the formation of “P” led by I, thereby engaging in the operation and activities of the existing union.

② The lower court’s determination that the Defendant committed the instant unfair labor practice in collusion with I, a non-identification offender, without any changes in the indictment, is beyond the limit of the amendment of indictment, and is beyond the limit of the amendment of indictment, and the offense of violation of Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) is established only when the employer is a non-identification offender, and cannot be established.

(3) Whether a person is the subject of control and intervention stipulated in subparagraph 4 of Article 81 of the Trade Union Act shall be determined in relation to workers who are engaged in the pertinent unfair labor practice. There is no right to direct and supervise in relation to I who works at the headquarters of the Corporation, other than E business offices, and the Defendant does not fall under “employer” under the Trade Union Act in this case.

(4) The defendant's act does not constitute "the act of intervening in the operation of a trade union by an employee" under subparagraph 4 of Article 81 of the Trade Union Act.

⑤ Defendant’s act is a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms.

B. As to the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (a fine of four million won), the defendant asserts that the defendant is too unreasonable and unfair, and the prosecutor asserts that the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, under the title “determination on the dispute point” against this point.