beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant B and C shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won, Defendant D and E shall be punished by a fine of 2,50,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
In fact, the Defendants held an assembly that demands “employment of local residents, reduction of working hours, wage increase, etc.” in the vicinity of the construction site of officetels from October 2012 to the point of view that the said union members were not properly employed in the “Ktel” construction implemented by the victim J, Inc., and that the above union members have been holding an assembly that demands “employment of local residents, reduction of working hours, wage increase, etc.” in the vicinity of the construction site of officetels.
Criminal facts
1. The Defendants’ co-defendants conspired with 20-30 employees of the above labor union members to stop their work hours. From around 07:00 on November 26, 2012 to around 09:00 on the construction site of the above officetels in Ansan-si’s members L, Defendant A, who is an employee of the victim J Co., Ltd., was not able to do so. We will see that the above workers who were not aware of their personal information due to their losses, were sealed, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E also prevented the above workers from entering the construction site by reducing the above workers’ personal information with 20-30 members of the labor union.
Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with more than 20-30 members of the above Trade Union and interfered with the victim's construction work of the instant officetel by force for about two hours.
2. Defendant A
A. At around 08:50 on November 26, 2012, the Defendant: (a) committed assault to the mitigation department of the NAA that demanded the said staff members to repair the scrap in front of the site of the construction of the instant officetel; (b) “I sprink. I do sprink. I do sprink. I do sprink. I do sprink. I do sprink. I do sprink to the face of the saidO; and (c) assaulted the said staff by hand.
As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the adjustment of police officers' work site.
B. The Defendant is the same date and time as the above paragraph (a).