The Defendants are not guilty.

[The facts charged in the instant case] Defendant B Co., Ltd. had its head office in Daegu-gun Group C and employs 119 full-time workers, and operated six businesses, such as the manufacture of alcoholic beverages for automobiles, and Defendant A has worked as the representative director of B Co., Ltd from March 22, 2013.

1. An employer shall not control or intervene in the organization or operation of a trade union by a worker, and shall not provide wages to the full-time officer of a trade union, or assist in the operation of a trade union;

Nevertheless, during the period from March 2015 to November 2016, the Defendant provided D with subsidies of KRW 4,200,000, totaling KRW 15,930,000, KRW 10,500,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 4,923,370, KRW 3,618,810, and KRW 44,172,180, which is the sole trade union of the above business place.

2. From March 2015 to November 201, 2016, Defendant B, a representative director of the Defendant, with respect to the Defendant’s business, provided aid for operating expenses of a trade union as described in the foregoing 1.

[Grounds for Non-Offense]

1. The prosecutor’s application of the law to the facts charged in the instant case specified the provision applicable to Defendant A as “Article 90 and Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act,” and specified the provision applicable to the above facts charged to Defendant B as “Article 94, Article 90, and Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act”.

2. The Constitutional Court’s decision on inconsistency with the Constitution provides support for the operating expenses of a trade union under Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 9930, Jan. 1, 2010) that prohibits an employer from providing assistance to operating expenses of a trade union through “the full bench decision 2012Hun-Ba 90, May 31, 2018” (amended by Act No. 9930, May 1, 2010).