beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed against the Defendant E by A, B, C, D, F, G and Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The solicitation by the Defendants A, C, D, F, and G to participate in the strike by entering the K Station in around 18:20 on November 27, 2009 constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act as part of an industrial action by the Korean Railroad Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "railroad Workers' Union") that took place from November 26, 2009.
B. The prosecutor (Defendant E) determined that Defendant E was insufficient to recognize the fact of committing each of the instant crimes in collusion with other Defendants.
However, according to the legitimate evidence revealed in the instant case, it is sufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant E conspired with other Defendants to commit the crime of intrusion on structure and the crime of interference with business.
2. According to the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts as to Defendant E, the court below and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above defendants entered K Station. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case are acknowledged, i.e., whether the above defendants reached the investigation agency from the investigation agency to the investigation agency, they were in the way of not participating in the strike to the essential number of employees, and at the time, they were trying to remain even though they had entered the ticket. The above defendants consistently stated that they did not go into the ticket, and that they went into the ticket even if they had come to the ticket, they did so. ② At the time of other defendants' statements and at the time of entering the ticket, the above defendants conspired with the above defendants in collusion with the K Station Ra, the chief of K Station, the O (day workers at night), the Gwangju Regional Headquarters's testimony at the investigation agency, and each investigation agency's testimony or testimony at each of the above defendants.
In full view of the fact that it is difficult to deem that a power has been exercised.