Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Redwon

Attorney Lee Young-chul

Busan District Court Decision 2010Ra124 Decided May 25, 2010

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants and defense counsel

With respect to the holding of an outdoor assembly on August 20, 209 against Defendant 2 and 3, the Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that ① assembly on August 20, 2009 is not an assembly subject to reporting under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the grounds for appeal indicate that it is not subject to dispersion order but an assembly in light of the overall purport of oral argument, etc.). ② Night outdoor assembly is generally prohibited at the time of the assembly. Since the prohibition of inconsistency with the Constitution was made after the assembly of this case, the Defendants could not be able to think that the assembly of this case should be reported at the time of the assembly of this case, there was no possibility of expectation for the Defendants to report the assembly of this case, and thus, the Defendants cannot be punished. As such, the Defendants’ act of opening an assembly beyond the scope of the reported place on October 13, 2009 and entering common residential areas, and the Defendants’ act of opening and opening of the assembly of this case is not unlawful by misapprehending the legal principles as to labor and opening of the assembly of this case’s association.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Of the non-guilty portion of the judgment below, the prosecutor held an assembly in Busan Station from September 4, 200 to September 17, 2009 (18:47) with regard to the holding of the non-reported outdoor assembly on September 4, 2009: (1) the Defendants held an assembly in Busan Station from September 17, 200 to sunset; (2) the Defendants asserted that the Defendants violated the Assembly and Demonstration Act by failing to comply with the law governing the assembly and demonstration order from September 19:35 to 20:5 on September 4, 2009, since the identity between the reported assembly and the actually held assembly is not recognized; and (3) the Defendants’ failure to comply with the law governing the assembly and demonstration order from September 4, 2009 constitutes an unlawful act of violating the law regarding the assembly and demonstration in the name of Busan Station since they held an assembly beyond the scope of the reported assembly and demonstration, and (4) the Defendants’ failure to comply with the law regarding the assembly and demonstration order within 19:301.

2) The assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below (two years of the suspended sentence of six months for each of the defendants) against the defendants is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and their defense counsel

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1 is a person who acts as the chairman of the Busan Headquarters of the Korea Transport Industry Workers' Union, Defendant 3 is a person who acts as the director of the Korea Transport Industry Workers' Airport Department, and Defendant 2 is a person who acts as the director of the Korea Transport Industry Workers' Airport, Airport Transport Headquarters of the Korea Harbor Transport Workers' Association, and Busan Branch of the Korea Port Port Order (hereinafter referred to as the "Towing Vessels and Busan Branch").

On June 24, 2009, the tugboat labor union Busan District Association was established on June 27, 2009 by the Korea Transportation Industry Workers' Airport Korea Airport Port & Port Authority, the Ulsan District Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Towing labor union") established on June 27, 2009, and conducted collective bargaining with six tugboat business entities affiliated with the Busan District Office of the Korea tugboat Business Association and three tugboat business entities affiliated with the Busan District Office of the Korea tugboat Business Association of the Republic of Korea and the Ulsan District Office of the Korea tugboat Business Cooperatives requesting the recognition of union officers, provision of labor union office, special bonus, etc., but the negotiation was concluded, the tugboat labor union started to the full strike from August 7, 2009, and thereafter, the tugboat labor union was closed on November 10, 2009 and returned to work.

In the process, it is anticipated that the members of the tugboat labor union and the Ulsan District Association were unable to organize and operate a trade union due to the lack of experience in organization and activities of the trade union, and the executive members of the Busan District Headquarters of the National Transport Industry and Industry Union, including Defendant 1, 3, etc. were involved in the organization, operation, and dispute activities of the tugboat labor union from the beginning with Defendant 2, the president of the YMMM, and Nonindicted 2, the president of the YMM, the president of the YMM, and the head of the

A) On August 20, 2009, Defendant 2 and 3-3 holding an outdoor assembly not reported on August 20, 209

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, etc. of the assembly to the chief of the competent police station, but the above Defendants did not report on August 20, 209.

On August 20, 2009, from around 19:30 to about 20:30 on the same day, Defendant 3 installed sound facilities and visual devices in India for one hour in the front of the “Yei-do, Busan, Busan,” and had 150 members of the Yi-gu, Busan, to make a statement about the legitimacy of the business, etc., and to see, “I want to see the trade union in good faith,” and “I want to see the 30-year towing seafarer’s basic labor rights, which was lost without employment holidays guaranteed,” and “I want to see the 30-year towing seafarer’s basic labor rights,” and “I want to see the 60-year towing seafarer’s labor rights,” respectively.

In the process, Defendant 2 contacted the members and their families of the tugboat labor union in Busan and had them attend the meeting.

Accordingly, Defendant 2 and 3 conspired to hold an unreported outdoor assembly.

B) Defendants’ violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence) on October 13, 2009 and violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to an act clearly deviating from the place of the reported assembly.

On August 7, 2009, the tugboat labor union, Busan District Association, and Ulsan District Association joined the front strike, and held a meeting or conduct public relations activities for citizens in front of the competent labor office, port office, and tugboat business, etc. In particular, the tugboat labor union, from August 18, 2009 to October 12, 2009, held an assembly to urge the Government to participate in the negotiations and arbitration over a total of 15 times in front of the Busan District Labor Office. On October 7, 2009, the assembly was held on the following grounds: (i) the guarantee of union activities for the purpose of holding the assembly; (ii) the promotion of good faith negotiations; and (iii) the date of holding the assembly from October 13, 2009 to October 13, 2009; (iv) the place where the assembly is held; (iv) the organizer of the Busan Regional Labor Administration; (v) the number of participants of the assembly and demonstration reported pursuant to Article 201(1)6 of the Act.

Nevertheless, the strike has become more than 2 months without the proper progress of negotiations on the wind that the employer refuses to accept the trade union's demand, and the strong position of the employer is high.

On October 12, 2009, the Defendants discussed the measures together with the above non-indicted 2 at the office of the headquarters of the National Transport Industry Workers' Union in Busan metropolitan city located in the Seocho-gu Busan metropolitan city on October 12, 2009. On October 14, 2009, the Defendants planned to move to the beginning of the negotiations by moving to the first floor of the Busan Regional Labor Administration on October 13, 2009, which was scheduled to be held by the Busan Regional Labor Administration.

On October 13, 2009, Defendant 2 instructed its members to individually gather in the vicinity of the Busan Regional Labor Office located in the Busan Regional Labor Office by no later than 11:00 on the same day after the completion of the assembly scheduled to be held in the vicinity of the Busan Regional Labor Office, and the above non-indicted 2 instructed the members of the Ulsan Regional Labor Office to individually gather in the middle of the Busan Regional Labor Office through a bus terminal located in the Nowon-gu, Busan Regional Labor Office, and the non-indicted 2 instructed the members of the Ulsan Regional Labor Office to individually gather in the middle of the middle of the Busan Regional Labor Office on October 13, 2009, and Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 3 to enter the middle of the middle of the Busan Regional Labor Office with the first floor of the Busan Regional Labor Office.

In addition, around 11:00 on October 13, 2009, Defendant 1, 2, and Nonindicted 2 visited the Busan Regional Labor Office to hold an interview with the head of the Busan Regional Labor Office on the ground that there is a delay in handling the authentic payment of overdue wages raised by partners while meeting with Nonindicted 3, the head of the 3rd Regional Labor Management Division, etc., and during that period, 121 members of the tugboat labor union and the Ulsan Regional Labor Office decided according to the above order were entered the first floor between 11:20 on the same day and 11:30 on the same day, and thereafter, from that time, from that time to 14:50 on the floor of the same day, Defendant 3 requested the interview with the head of the Busan Regional Labor Administration and the head of the 3rd Regional Labor Administration to provide relief.

Accordingly, the Defendants infringed on the first floor of the Busan Regional Labor Administration, which is a structure managed by the head of the Busan Regional Labor Administration, in collaboration with the above non-indicted 2 and the members of the Busan Regional Labor Association and 121 members of the Ulsan Regional Labor Association, and violated the Assembly and Demonstration Act by doing an act clearly deviating from the place of the reported assembly in collusion with the above non-indicted 2.

2) Judgment of the court below

A) On August 20, 2009, Defendant 2 and 3-3 holding an outdoor assembly not reported on August 20, 209

(1) The assertion that it is not subject to reporting by exercising a cultural system

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s defense counsel asserted that the above date outdoor assembly shown video and cultural performances for the purpose of informing citizens and their family members of the unfair treatment of the pre-owners, and that some participants are the events of free speech and do not constitute an assembly subject to reporting under the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

The Assembly and Demonstration Act requires a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration to submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, organizer, etc. of the assembly or demonstration to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours prior to the commencement of the assembly or demonstration (Article 6 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act), but the above provision does not apply to an assembly on academic studies, art, sports, religion, ceremony, friendship, entertainment, marriage, funeral and ancestor worship, funeral and ancestor worship, etc. (Article 15 of the above Act). In this case, it is reasonable to judge whether an assembly is an assembly on academic events, etc. for which a report is not made, etc., by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the purpose, time, place, content, behavior of the participants, etc.

According to each evidence of the court below, it seems that the purpose of the assembly of this case appearing in the phrases, etc. posted at the time of the assembly is to inform the legitimacy of the strike of the union, to guarantee union activities and to urge sincere negotiations. ② The 150 participants of the assembly were 150 members, etc., including the union members and family members, etc., and the participants of the assembly were to have the participants of the assembly speak about the legitimacy, etc. of the tugboat labor union and the Busan Branch of the Assembly, to have the participants of the assembly speak about the legitimacy of the union's business, etc., and to have the participants of the assembly attend the assembly, "I want to live in person," and "I want to recognize a trade union," and (3) reported that other assemblies undertaken with the contents similar to the assembly of this case held by the defendants to be reported to the defendants by themselves. In light of the above facts, the assembly of this case is not a simple cultural system, but an assembly subject to reporting by the Assembly

(2) The ground of inconsistency with the Constitution concerning the provision prohibiting outdoor assembly at night

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s defense counsel held that: (a) at the time of the instant assembly, an outdoor assembly was generally prohibited; and (b) the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution regarding the foregoing prohibition was made after the instant assembly; and (c) at the time of the instant assembly, the above Defendants could not have been able to think that the said Defendants should report the outdoor assembly at night; and (d) therefore, the above Defendants cannot be punished because there is no likelihood of expectation about

In principle, Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that an outdoor assembly at night shall be prohibited in cases where certain requirements are met, and it may be permitted in such a case. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution that “The portion of the outdoor assembly in Article 10 of the above Act is not in accord with the Constitution. The above provision shall continue to apply until the legislator amends the Constitution on June 30, 2010.” As such, the ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution was made on September 24, 2009, even if there was a high possibility that the above Defendants would not be permitted in relation to the report of the night assembly at the time of the instant assembly, which is the previous one, even if there was a high possibility that the above Defendants would not be obliged to perform their duty to report or not be attributable to the failure of the above Defendants. Thus, the above defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted.

(B) joint housing intrusion;

The defense counsel of the defendants asserts that the Busan Regional Labor Administration is the place where the defendants and the members have the right to enter, entered it in a peaceful and peaceful manner, and there is no interference with the business, so the crime of intrusion on the structure is not established because there is no criminal intent for the intrusion on the structure.

The crime of homicideing or entering a structure is established to enter the structure against the will of the manager. In general, even in an open place, if it is necessary, the manager may prohibit or restrict the entry into the structure. Nevertheless, entering the premises of the structure against the will of the manager and going out to the outside for relief and working for the outside is likely to harm the peace of the structure.

According to the evidence of the judgment, the defendants and members of the Busan Regional Labor Administration did not make a realistic institution because they were not in a situation that they would not control the defects in the house at the expense of the Busan Regional Labor Administration, but did not have a normal access generally permissible, and reported the situation immediately. ② Although the defendant 1, 2, and the non-indicted 3, who visited the defendant 1, and the non-indicted 2, requested the defendant 1, etc. to leave the association members, the defendant 1, etc. were refused to leave the association members, and the defendant 3 et al. were living together with the union members; ③ the Busan Regional Labor Administration requested the facilities protection at the annual police station to leave the association members; ④ the defendants and the union members did not comply with the order of dispersion; ④ the defendants and the union members did not comply with the order of dispersion; and in light of these circumstances, the defendants were not able to accept the fact that they were dissolved by going to the police station against the explicit intent of the manager of the Busan Regional Labor Administration or its members.

C) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act beyond the scope of reported place, etc.

After the conclusion of the instant argument, the Defendants’ defense counsel added to the assertion that on October 13, 2009, through the submission of the summary of the argument as of May 14, 2010, the assembly was conducted not an outdoor assembly but an indoor assembly, and thus, is not subject to the Act on Assembly and Demonstration because the duty to report was not fulfilled. However, on October 13, 2009, the Defendants’ assembly was evaluated as part of the reported assembly activities in light of the purpose of the assembly, the participants and participants’ attending the assembly, the circumstances leading up to the assembly, and the progress of the assembly. The Defendants increased the risk of violation of public safety and order by holding the assembly at the Busan Regional Labor Office as part of the reported assembly’s criminal act outside the reported assembly place. This does not constitute an act provided for in Articles 22(3) and 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act solely on the ground that the place is inside the building, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the danger of infringement of public safety and order has been significantly lost or that the defense counsel’s allegation is not justified.

3) The judgment of this Court

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as argued by the Defendants and defense counsel, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the judgment below.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendants and lawyers.

B. Determination on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) The holding of an outdoor assembly that was not reported on September 4, 2009

(1) Summary of the facts charged in this case

(A) Main facts charged

Any person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, etc. of the assembly to the chief of the competent police station.

The Defendants did not report, from around 19:35 on September 4, 2009 to around 20:55 on the same day, the Busan-dong for about one hour to 20 minutes, and Defendant 1 installed sound facilities and video devices, and displayed video works to inform the legitimacy of the tugboat labor union strike in the presence of a total of 200 members, including 50 members of the tugboat labor union and Busan-do branch, and had the participants speak about the defective working conditions of the union members of the tugboat labor union and Busan-do branch, and the legitimacy of the requirements. Defendant 3 reported the society to proceed with the above assembly, and Defendant 2 conspired to hold the above assembly in collusion.

(B) Preliminary facts charged (the conjunctive facts charged was added at the appellate court)

The Defendants reported to the competent police station to the effect that “the Defendants will hold an assembly from September 4, 2009 to September 17:00, 2009 to the beginning of Busan Dong-dong.”

However, from around 19:35 on September 4, 2009 to around 20:55 on the same day, Defendant 1 screened video works to the effect that 200 persons, including 50 members of the tugboat and the Busan District Association, are justifiable in the field of tugboat labor union strike while the total of 200 members, including 50 members of the tugboat and the Busan District Association, and had the participants speak about the poor working conditions, legitimacy of the requirements, etc. of the union members of the tugboat labor union and the Busan District Association, and proposed relief to “the people who live in a correct response, and the people who live in a democratic labor union”.

In the process, Defendant 3 reported the society for the progress of the assembly, and Defendant 2 contacted the members and their families of the tugboat labor union in order to have them attend the assembly.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit an act clearly deviating from the date and time reported.

(2) The judgment of the court of original judgment (the judgment on the principal facts charged)

(A) Facts of recognition

Comprehensively taking account of each statement of outdoor assembly report (Evidence Nos. 66), notice of documentary evidence, photograph, information situation report (Evidence No. 67), and each statement of police interrogation protocol against the Defendants (Evidence No. 68 through 70) on September 1, 2009, the Defendants reported an assembly pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act by stating that the Defendants “the guarantee of trade union activities for the purpose of holding the assembly, the promotion of good faith negotiations, the date of holding the assembly, September 17, 2009 as of September 4, 2009, the time when the assembly was held, and 300 persons scheduled to participate.” From around 17:00 on the same day, the Defendants prepared an assembly in accordance with the purpose of holding the above assembly from around 17:00 on the date when the number of participants was written, but it is recognized that the Defendants participated in the assembly from around 19:35 p.m. to the same day during the period from around the time when the assembly was closed.

(B) Determination

① According to the facts found, an assembly held at night on September 4, 2009 is organized beyond the reported time to be held at night, but Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act prohibits, in principle, an outdoor assembly held at night until sunset, and it appears that it is possible to predict the possibility that many people may delay the holding of the assembly or delay the time. ② Article 10 of the above Act prohibits an outdoor assembly at night, in principle, the Constitutional Court Order 2008Hun-Ga25 Decided September 24, 2009, provides that the restriction on the view that it would be sunset would undermine the identity of the assembly before and after the report; ③ Article 22(2) and 6(1) through 200,000 won of the above Act prohibits the organizer of the non-reported outdoor assembly from being present at night, and Article 10 of the above Act explicitly provides that the Defendants may be present at the meeting beyond the reported time or fine of up to 300,000 won, and Article 22(1)6 of the Act provides that the Defendants may be present at night.

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

(3) Judgment of this Court

(A) As to the primary facts charged

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case is consistent with the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged not guilty based on the above evidence judgment, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

(B) As to the conjunctive charges

In light of the purport of the Assembly and Demonstration Act’s establishment of a reporting system, whether an outdoor assembly or demonstration held in reality constitutes “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported purpose, date, time, place, method, etc.” as prescribed by Article 16(4)3 of the Act shall be determined by whether the assembly or demonstration clearly deviates from the scope expected by the report and considerably difficult to achieve the purpose of the reporting system. In determining it, the freedom of assembly or demonstration is a citizen’s fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, and the organizer of the assembly, etc. may not only anticipate the detailed matters of the method of the assembly or demonstration, but also make it difficult for him/her to report without delay, on the basis of the fact that it is inevitable to change the method in the process of the assembly or demonstration, etc., and then comprehensively and comprehensively compared the details of the report and actual situation, and then comprehensively and comprehensively evaluate it (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3974, Oct. 23, 2008).

In light of the above legal principles, the record reveals that the Defendants reported the date and time to the meeting from September 17, 200 to sunset (18:47 of the daily sunset in Busan area) but actually held the meeting from 19:35 to 20:55 (Provided, That the preparation for the meeting was made before that date). Meanwhile, the purpose, place, method, etc. of the remaining assembly excluding the date and time of the meeting excluding the assembly excluding the date and time of the meeting excluding the date and time of the meeting excluding the date and time of the meeting excluding the date and time of the meeting excluding the time of the meeting excluding the fact that the participants are gathered and the meeting was held later and the meeting is deemed to have been delayed, and there is no reason to deem that the Assembly and Demonstration Act prohibits the meeting from meeting at night to sunset in principle, and there is no reason to deem that there is a lack of time to recognize that the assembly is beyond the scope of time prior to and after the meeting as being beyond 9 days prior and after that.

B) On October 13, 2009, the fact that the order of dissolution is not complied with

(1) Summary of the facts charged in this case

On October 13, 2009, the Defendants entered the place of assembly reported on October 13, 2009 with the first floor of the Busan Regional Labor Administration, and demanded an interview with the head of the Busan Regional Labor Administration to leave the floor, and the labor price was flick and the head of the Labor Administration presented relief.

In the process, Defendant 1, 2, and Nonindicted 2 received a request for the closure declaration at several times from Nonindicted 5, the chief of the guard and transportation division of the Busan Police Station delegated authority by Nonindicted 4 to the head of the Busan Police Station at around 11:50 on the same day. The Defendants and 122 members of the Assembly at the Busan Police Station at around 12:10 on the same day from Nonindicted 5, the first dispersion order was issued at around 12:20 on the same day, the second dispersion order was issued at around 13:5 on the same day, and the second dispersion order was issued at around 14:35 on the same day, but did not comply with such request even if he received three dispersion orders from the said Nonindicted 4 on the same day.

As a result, the Defendants did not immediately dissolve even though they received a dispersion order issued by a police officer on the ground that they conspired with the aforementioned Nonindicted 2 and 121 members of the tugboat labor union in Busan and Ulsan District Association and continued to hold an assembly that is unable to maintain order by clearly deviating from the scope of the place, method, etc. of the reported assembly (the prosecutor added the portion of the facts charged to the facts charged at the appellate court and added Article 16(4)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act to the applicable provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act).

(2) Judgment of the court below

In light of the contents of the facts charged in this case, the assembly subject to the dispersion order in this case is an assembly that clearly deviates from the scope of the place reported under Article 16 (4) 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. Therefore, the applicable provisions of the above facts charged in Articles 24 subparagraph 5, 20 (2), 20 (1) 5, and 16 (4) 3 of the above Act are the applicable provisions of Article 20 (1) 5 of the above Act.

Article 20(1)5 of the above Act provides that "any assembly or demonstration that cannot maintain order due to an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 16(4)" as one of the assemblies subject to dispersion order. It is insufficient to establish that the assembly is an assembly that clearly deviates from the scope of the reported place, etc., and that it is an assembly that cannot maintain order. However, even upon examining all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the assembly of this case was an assembly that cannot maintain order, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

(3) Judgment of this Court

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case reveals that the court below's decision to not guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and it is not sufficient to recognize that Non-Indicted 6's legal statement of the party witness additionally investigated at the court below was still an assembly which makes it difficult to maintain order at the time. Thus, as pointed out by the prosecutor of the court below, it does not constitute an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (as at the time of the appellate trial, the prosecutor's act of intrusion against the Busan Regional Labor Office without permission constitutes "an act of disturbing order such as violence, intimidation, destruction, fire prevention, etc." as stipulated in Article 16 (4) 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and therefore, it constitutes an act of violating the order of assembly and demonstration as stipulated in Article 16 (1) 4 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and therefore, it cannot be viewed as an act of violation of order of Article 6 (1) 6 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act as one of the Defendants.

Therefore, there is no reason for the prosecutor's allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The assertion of unreasonable sentencing

On August 20, 2009, the crime of this case was committed by the defendants holding an outdoor assembly not to be reported on August 20, 200, and on October 13, 2009, 120 members and 3 hours after unauthorized intrusion into the Busan Regional Labor Office, which is a public agency, causing interference with the legitimate performance of the State agency's duties. The defendants led the crime of this case as executive officers such as the nation's transportation industry, assistance in the tugboat industry, etc., but they did not engage in violence or excessive acts in the course of their own nature. In addition, there are some circumstances considering the motive and contents of the crime of this case, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the defendants' age, character and conduct, family relation, occupation, etc., as well as all the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and thus, the court below's decision of unfair sentencing cannot be justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case by the defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon-won (Presiding Judge)