209 Highest 4170 A. Violation of the State Public Officials Act

b. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

2010 Highest 457 (Consolidation)

2010 Highest 539 (Joints)

1. A. B. Ga. Ga (A, 62-years, male) and teachers (the head of the Ga. B. T. T. T. T. T. and T. T. T. B.)

Residential Ansan-gu

Mayang-si in the place of registration

2. A. Gu (B, 75 years old, female) and teachers (the director-general of the organization of the branch office of the Jeon school and the head of the organization of the Jeon school).

Guidecheon-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government

Standard place of registration is Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun

3. A. KimO (C, 65-years, male) and teachers (the Secretary General of the Gyeonggi-do Branch Office for the Jeon school)

Housing Guang-si

king City of reference domicile

4. A.O.O. (D, 61years, women) and teachers (the chief vice-chapter of the Na school assistant branch)

The head of the branch office)

Residentialization City

Suwon-si District of Original domicile

5. A. O.O. (E, 65 years old, male) and teachers (the head of the policy office of the Do branch office of the Jeon school T.S.)

Residentialization City

Reference domicile, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si

6. A. KimO (F. 76 years old, female) and teachers (education vessels of the Gyeonggi-do Branch of the Jeon school.)

National Funerals)

Housing Suwon-si, Housing Suwon-si

Hamyeong-gu, Hamyeong-gu, Hamyeong-dong

Kim 00. Mon Kim

Law Firm (For the Defendants)

Attorney Kim 000

2010, 4.23

Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,00,00, KRW 000, and KRW 500,000, respectively.

When Defendant A or F does not pay the above fine, the period calculated by converting each of 50,000 won into one day.

The above Defendants are confined in the workhouse.

The sentence for Defendant B, C. D and E shall be suspended, respectively.

Criminal facts

[209 Highest000, 2010 Highest 001

Defendant A is a state public official as the teacher of the Pyeongtaek-si High School, and is the head of the Gyeonggi-do branch of the Korean Teachers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “former School”). Defendant B is a state public official, the head of the Gyeonggi-do branch of the Korean Teachers’ Union, and Defendant C is the head of the Gyeonggi-do branch of the Korean Teachers’ Union, and Defendant C is an elementary school teacher of the king-si. Defendant C is a state public official who is the head of the affairs division of the Jeonyang-si branch of the Korea Teachers’ Association, and Defendant D is the head of the Do branch of the Korea Teachers’ Union as a state public official. Defendant D is the head of the Do branch of the Korea Teachers’ Union as a state public official, and Defendant E is the head of the Silsan High School Policy Office as a state public official, and Defendant F is a state public official as the teacher of the Kucheon-si branch of the

Jeon school section is a teacher's trade union organized under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions on January 6, 199, which was established on May 28, 199. The Jeon school section was established on the 1989 and established on January 6, 199. The Jeon school section is a teacher's trade union organized under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions. The Jeon school section was established on the 1st of Seoul, Gyeonggi-do, Daegu-do, Incheon-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and Jeju-do, 16 metropolitan branch offices, 252 branch offices established on the 6th of the 1st of the 6th of the 19th of the 6th of the 1st of the 6th of the 1st of the 6th of the 1st of the 19th of the 1st of the 1st of the 6th of the 1st of the 6th of the 2nd of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 2th of the government.

The Defendants, as the president of the Jeon school, G. H. 1, the head of the Seoul District Department 1, the head of the Busan District Department K. G. The head of the Daejeon District Department N. The head of the Daejeon District Department 0, Q. the head of the Chungcheong District Department Q. Q. the head of the Chungcheong District Department T. the head of the Jeonnam branch T. the head of the Jeonnam branch T. the head of the Jeonnam branch T. the head of the Jeonnam branch T. the head of the Jeonnam branch V. the head of the Jeonnam branch and the members of the 0th branch T. the head of the 0th branch and the 0th branch of the 0th branch, and the head of the 10th branch of the 0th branch of the 0th branch of the 0th branch of the 0th branch and the 0th branch of the 1st branch of the 0th branch of the 0th branch and the 10th branch of the 0th branch of the 1st branch of the 0th branch.

On June 18, 2009, 10 10 members of G and Jeon school. At the 1st 6th 0th m3th m3th m3th m3th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4th m4).

After all, the Defendants conspired with the former assistant assistant officers and teachers belonging thereto, and committed collective acts for the extra-public activities as public officials.

[209 Highest000, 2010 Highest00]

1. Violation of the State Public Officials Act by Defendant A, B, and C

The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as the "Ministry of Education") accused the teachers who participated in the First Declaration of the Assembly against the prosecution, and requested the Office of Education to take disciplinary measures against the City/Do Office of Education. The previous curriculum was contrary to the policies of the Department of Education, and held the 361 Provisional Central Executive Committee at the first session of the headquarters of the Jeon school, around 30:0 on June 19, 2009.

Defendant A, as a central executive member, participated in the above meeting with the head of 15 branch offices of the 15 branch offices. At the above meeting, the head of the Jeon school policy division made a transitional report with respect to the announcement of disciplinary measures against the Ministry of Culture and Arts at the 00th temporary session. Then, G was placed at the same time as a "case of the strike against the disciplinary measures against Jeon school". The above agenda was passed as the original agenda with the consent of the central executive members including the above Defendant, and its main contents were ① Jeon school headquarters was converted into the 7th session, ② from 00,00, the public officials and teachers and the teachers and the teachers and the teachers and the teachers and the teachers and the teachers and the teachers and the teachers participated in the meeting at least 20,000, 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

On the other hand, the Jeon school assistant branch deliberated on the enforcement matters according to the results of the 361 Provisional Central Committee of the Jeon school branch. On July 2, 2009, the Dong school assistant branch held a meeting of the president of the Dong school branch and decided to share the failure and promotion measures of the second assembly.

On 209, 6, 30. 30, the former Telecommunication Headquarters: (a) requested all the teachers belonging to the former Telecommunication Group to send the e-mail in the name of G to participate in the second City Declaration by sending out the e-mail in the name of G to the former Telecommunication Group; (b) 16 branches, including the former Telecommunication Group, were required to participate in the second City Declaration by posting a signature paper on its website or sending a letter to the president as the other party.

Accordingly, from June 30, 200 to July 2009, 28, 234 teachers belonging to the Jeon school group, including a large number of state public officials, signed on the above signature form and expressed their intent to submit it to the agencies belonging to the Jeon school group or to participate in the assembly. 16 branches, including the Jeon school group, including the Jeon school group, confirmed that they were signed by teachers at each branch during the same period of time, and reported to the Jeon school group by gathering a list of participants. Defendant A, B, and C signed on the sign form of the Assembly and Demonstration, and Defendant C sent it to the Jeon school group’s signature on the second school group’s signature to Defendant A, and urged Defendant C to participate in the second school group’s e-mail with the previous school group’s signature on the 0th e-mail group’s 20th e-mail, including the previous school group’s signature on the 0th e-mail group’s 20th e-mail.

On July 19, 2009, 20 persons, including G, including the former executives at the headquarters of the previous school including G, etc., from around 00 to around 14:20 on July 14, 2009, 200, hereinafter in Seoul SOOOO will continuously make efforts and accusations to confirm the legitimacy of the assembly, and take place at the Seoul SOOO’s public forum, which includes the contents of 'bregion for the withdrawal of continuous efforts and accusation and disciplinary action', and announced the assembly report of 's democratic defense building declaration' which consists of 28 and 634 teachers on the same day on the BOO Internet homepage (www. 2000,000,0000, hereinafter referred to as '2' and '2' of the Assembly report and 'B' of this case.

The key contents of the Assembly and Demonstration are unconstitutional abuse of public power. The Assembly and Demonstration demanded the guarantee of freedom of expression and withdrawal of disciplinary measures against the teachers, and demand the legitimacy of the First Declaration, which is an expression of opinion of the teachers belonging to the previous school group on the urgent issue with political conflict of interests, and demand the transition of the president’s attitude.

Then, the former Declaration was made on July 23, 209 by verifying the participants in the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and was made public on the 28th anniversary of the former Declaration and the 17th anniversary of the same day on July 19, 209, the former Declaration was made by 2 members of the Democratic Labor Relations Commission, AB members of the Democratic Labor Relations Commission, AD National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Public Relations Union'), and the former Declaration was made by 10 members of the Assembly and Demonstration, and the former Declaration was made by 10 members of the Assembly and Demonstration. The former Declaration was made by 20 members of the Assembly and Assembly and the former Declaration were made by 10 members of the Assembly and Demonstration, 10 members of the former Democratic Labor Relations Commission and 15 members of the National Labor Relations Commission.

From 00 to 19:00 on the same day, from 17:0 to 00, the YTN AI labor union chairman was a democratic recovery, and the 2nd National Assembly of the People's Republic of Korea. In the process of the implementation of the 2nd National Assembly of the People's Republic of Korea, the participants of the assembly withdraw the Act and died in the 17th National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. The 4th class of the 4th class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 19th class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 3th class of the 2nd class of the 2nd class of the 3th class of the 3th class of the 3th class of the 2nd class of the 4th class of the 4th class of the 3th class.

As a result, the above Defendants conspired with the members of the court labor union to engage in collective action for non-public service.

2. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act by Defendant A;

As described in the preceding paragraph, the participants of the said 361 Provisional Central Execution Committee, including Defendant A, decided to hold an unreported meeting in accordance with the strike plan decided at the above conference, and the above Defendant started an assembly by using four diskettes, including: G, AJ, AK, AK, L, and I, with 20 former executives and employees of the whole bridge, including G, AJ, AK, AK, L, and I, on June 29, 2009: from 05 to 05, “I do not have the legal disciplinary action against the freedom of expression and conscience” in India.

Accordingly, on June 29, 2009, the senior police station guard leader, who was authorized by the chief of the senior police station, requested voluntary dispersion on or around 35 grounds of unreported assemblies and demonstrationss. However, 17 persons, such as the above Defendants G, G, AJ, AK, AK, and L. I, did not comply with the request for voluntary dispersion, and submitted a letter of objection to the Cheongju, at around 14:40 on the same day, he started proceeding with the Cheongju-do. The above security guard leader is under the direction of 14:40, and the first dispersion order is ordered at around 14:45, the second dispersion order is ordered at around 45, and the third dispersion order is ordered at around 55.

Although the above defendant and G et al. participated in the assembly, they did not immediately dissolve.

Accordingly, the above Defendant, in collusion with the participants of the above 361 Provisional Central Central Executive Committee, such as G andY, did not immediately dissolve even after he/she received an order for dispersion following an unreported assembly and demonstration in collusion with the above participants, such as G, AU, AK, AK, and L. I.

Summary of Evidence

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Defendant A: Articles 84 and 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act; Articles 22(2), 6(1), 24 subparag. 5 and 20(2) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Selection of each fine

Defendant B, C. D, E, and F: each State Public Officials Act Articles 84 and 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

Selection of Fines

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A, B, and C: the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. The punishment to suspend the sentence;

Defendant B, C: Each fine of 700,000 won

Defendant D, E: Fines 500,000

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A. F: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

The Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion on the Defendants’ and the Declaration

1. Summary of the assertion

The Assembly and Demonstration Act constitutes an act other than official duties, and there is no theory on delegation by a large number of teachers. However, the collective act with purposes other than official duties under Article 66 of the State Public Officials Act is not an act that may affect the public interest, such as neglecting the duty of care. However, the Assembly and Demonstration Act merely aims to indicate concerns about the crisis of democracy and education caused by the present government, and demand correction thereof, and it does not interfere with the citizen’s pursuit of interest by representing the interests of the teachers’ group, and it does not constitute a violation of the prohibition of political activities under Article 3 of the Teachers’ Union and Demonstration Act. Thus, it does not appear to have been done for the purpose of going against the public interest. In addition to the act of signing or working hours at several minutes of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, it does not constitute a violation of the student’s right to teach or a violation of school affairs. Therefore, the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not constitute a violation of the State Public Officials Act, and thus, the Defendants should be acquitted.

2. Determination

(a) Elements of the applicable provisions of this case;

Article 66 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that "no public official shall engage in any collective act for any work other than public service." "collective act prohibited by the above Act" means any collective act conducted by public officials for any work other than public service, not for public service. It means any collective act that affects the public interest, such as neglecting the duty of care for the purpose against the public interest, by comprehensively taking into account Article 21 (1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, press, publishing, meeting, and association, the constitutional principles, the purport of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith under the State Public Officials Act, the duty of care under the State Public Officials Act, and the duty of care, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do629, May 12, 1998; 20Do629, Apr. 19, 200).

B. Whether it is an act for the purpose of violating the public interest

(1) Provisions on the political neutrality of public officials

Article 7(2) of the Constitution provides that “The political neutrality of public officials shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by Act.” Article 65 of the State Public Officials Act and Article 57 of the Local Public Officials Act prohibit political membership and activities of political parties and election campaign of public officials by embodying it, and Article 9 of the Public Official Election Act also prohibits public officials from exercising unfair influence on election. The restriction on political activities of public officials should be made to the minimum extent necessary in light of the fact that public officials’ political freedom is extremely important as citizens of the Republic of Korea, and each of the above Acts should be interpreted as exceptionally enumerated in prohibited political activities.

(2) Provisions pertaining to the political neutrality of teachers

Meanwhile, Article 31(4) of the Constitution provides that “The autonomy, expertise, and political neutrality of education shall be guaranteed as prescribed by the law rate.” The Constitution provides that “The purpose of respect for its independence and expertise is to respect its independence and expertise, and special exceptions are different from those of public educational officials in regard to the qualification, appointment, remuneration, and guarantee of status of public educational officials under the Public Educational Officials Act.” In addition, in order to support the political impartiality of education, the Constitution basically prohibits political education, ② the political impartiality of educational administration, ③ the exclusion of the political pressure on education, ④ the non-consembiance of education, and the regulation of teachers’ political activities.” Article 6(1) of the Framework Act on Education provides that “education shall be operated to fulfill its functions according to the original purpose of education, and it shall not be used as a means to propagate political strike or individual prejudice, and Article 14(4) provides that “any person shall not be forced to support or oppose any specific student.”

(3) Regulation of political activities of teachers and purpose of legislation of the Teachers' Labor Unions Act

As a matter of principle, the State Public Officials Act applies to national and public teachers, political activities are restricted in accordance with the aforementioned provisions of the Act. However, Article 3 of the Act on the Trade Union and Labor of Teachers provides that “the labor union of the members shall not engage in any political activity.”

In this regard, the Defendants and the defense counsel asserts that in light of the provisions of Article 65 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 27 of the National Security Service Regulations, the Presidential Decree, Article 58 of the Political Funds Act and Article 58 of the Private School Act, the term "all political activities" in the Teachers' Labor Relations Adjustment Act means the special correction for the purpose of acquiring power in election, or the activities supporting or opposing a specific person.

However, even though the State Public Officials Act prohibits political activities under the State Public Officials Act, it does not stipulate specific limits on the prohibition of political activities. The Act appears to the purport of regulating individual members by classifying political activities and political activities of labor unions as citizens. ② There has been controversy as to whether the Act on the Assistance to Teachers and Employees, after the establishment of a full-time school, should be recognized as its substance for a long time until it was enacted, and the opposing grounds have been set up that the Act may infringe on the neutrality of education by putting full-time school into political power, and ③ Teachers are more strengthened in the duty of neutrality and objectivity compared to ordinary public officials, depending on the unique characteristics of the function of realizing the public education system under the Constitution. ④ In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it appears to the purport that other forms of political activities except the essential activities of the full-time school, as mentioned in the interpretation of the language and text, should not be permitted, as a matter of course, by presenting at least other forms of political activities, excluding those of the full-time school members, which are likely to infringe on their social neutrality and social interests, including the establishment of the foregoing.

(4) Whether the assembly and demonstration of this case constitutes a political activity under the Teachers’ Labor Assistance Act

The Assembly and Demonstration Act does not begin with individual teachers, but with extremely short time under the planning, organization, and encouragement of the former Telecommunication Enforcement Department. ② The former Telecommunication Enforcement Department appears to have led to the government’s pressure on the various policies of the government since the former president’s movement of labor force, thereby preventing the decision and enforcement of the policies opposed to the former Telecommunication. Of the teachers participating in the Assembly and Demonstration 3, a large number of teachers are seen to belong to the former Telecommunication, and the Assembly and Demonstration was related to the former. ④ In light of the concrete expression of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the Assembly and Demonstration Act’s contents were criticized as a string of the government and the teachers’ power, and the part related to education policy was part, but it appears to be in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act’s main purpose and the Act’s main purpose is to exclude the government from the Assembly and Demonstration.

(5) Profit balancing

Public service (Pubic Service) public interest is to enhance the public trust in policy-making neutrality and to obtain the trust of public officials by neutral enforcement of policies in a neutral manner. Furthermore, teachers, especially teachers engaged in general curriculum, have the duty to suggest unreasonable and neutral values in their duties and to assist students to see their own legitimate values and world view. As such, teachers need to guarantee their status not to be unfairly affected by political, social, or religious power that violates the nature of education, while refusing such impact and are also obliged to maintain impartiality (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 89Hun-Ga106, Jul. 22, 1991).

In this case, the Assembly and Demonstration of this case did not have any relation with teachers’ interests and status, and educational policies, and had any influence on politics by taking advantage of the former and the former and the latter’s participation in a large number of teachers. As such, the Assembly and Demonstration of this case, beyond the trend of public trust on the neutrality of teachers and public officials, caused a new conflict between the powers supporting them and those opposing them. Therefore, the infringement of the value is not easy, and even if it is limited, it does not go against the necessity and suitability principle, and is not contrary to the principle of excessive prohibition, and it cannot be deemed as infringing on teachers’ freedom of political expression in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition.

(c) Whether an act may affect the duty of care, such as neglecting such duty of care;

(1) As seen earlier, insofar as the Defendants committed an act contrary to the public interest, it is sufficient to view that the Defendants committed an act that may interfere with the performance of duties and cause the Defendants to neglect their duty of care.

(2) The Defendants’ act of signing on the instant text is limited to the degree of division, and thus, the Defendants did not have any duty of care in violation of the duty of care. However, it is not reasonable to determine whether the duty of care in good faith has been neglected only on a short and short basis. In addition, at least, the Defendants did an act of considerable time in planning and organization, encouragement, signing, and analysis with respect to the instant assembly and demonstration.

(3) The defense counsel also asserts to the effect that the Second Declaration and the Second Declaration were held on holidays, and thus, they do not constitute neglect of duty to concentrate on duty. However, group acts that affect duty to concentrate on duty, such as neglect of duty, etc. were committed during working hours or committed outside working hours, or did not have any relation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du16786, Jun. 23, 2009). This part of the assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the Defendants committed a collective act that may affect the Defendants’ failure to perform their duty of care for a purpose contrary to the public interest. This does not seem to have observed the following circumstances: “The Defendants and the defense counsel’ assertion is without merit, and the illegality of the instant act should be avoided due to the act of political party, etc.” ( Meanwhile, in the instant case, the Defendants and the defense counsel did not assert procedural issues or the unconstitutionality of relevant regulations regarding the prosecution, and did not find any other issues, as the Defendants and the defense counsel did not find any other issues.).

Reasons for sentencing

With respect to the punishment provision of this case, active discussions have been made on where the limit of public official's political activities should be expanded, including the legislative attempt to revise it. The assembly assembly of this case was peacefully conducted, and there was no other act of violating other Acts in the process. The contents of the assembly of this case did not violate the constitutional spirit or contain any anti-social contents (the assembly of this case was punished for violating the prohibition of public official's political activities). In Japan, where the contents of the signature movement against a specific bill or budget, and the operation policy is punished for violating the prohibition of public official's political activities, the assembly of this case is against a specific bill or budget, and it is not intended to change the basic principle of democratic politics, or it is against the relevant policy, it is not punishable. However, the assembly of this case did not punish the Defendants in case where the contents of the signature movement were not intended to change the basic principle of democratic political activities, or it is against the pertinent policy. The assembly of this case was decided as a fine against the Defendants B and C. D. The assembly of this case did not suspend the sentence and its execution.

Judges Lee Young-soo