Text
The judgment below
Among these judgments, each part of the crime of interference with business concerning the attached list of crimes shall be reversed.
Reasons
1. Case progress and scope of trial of this court;
A. 1) The lower court, i.e., the instant facts charged, namely, E (hereinafter “E”).
(1) On July 2, 2008, the chief executive officer of the Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “instant strike”).
business interference by section 2, (2) interference with business related to U.S. beef transportation storage, (3) interference with business related to AE Group, (4) June 11, 2007
6. On November 2, 2007, the Enforcement Decree of the Non-regular Workers Act violated the Assembly and Demonstration Act related to the ordinary strike on the second day of the 1st century (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), 5th November 11, 2007 violation related to the Assembly and Demonstration Act and general traffic obstruction, 6th December 13, 2007, 7th June 26, 2008, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of 2 years for a two-year imprisonment.
Seoul Central District Court 2009
3. As to the judgment of the court below, the defendant appealed each on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing, on the grounds that the defendant appealed from the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor appealed from the judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing. The judgment of the court of first instance prior to the remand did not have justifiable grounds for both appeals and dismissed all of them.
The defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance on June 11, 2009 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009No878 delivered on June 11, 2009). With respect to the obstruction of business by the strike of this case, the Supreme Court does not always constitute the crime of interference with business, and it is reasonable to view that the obstruction of business constitutes the crime of interference with business only when it can be judged that the free will on the continuation of business of the user can be disturbed because the strike as an industrial action was conducted at a time unforeseeable by the user in light of the situation and circumstances before and after the strike of this case, and caused a serious confusion or enormous damage to the business operation of the user.