[Defendant]
[Appellant] Defendant
[Lower Court Decision]
Masan District Court Decision 90No968, rendered on February 6, 1991
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
[Reasoning] The grounds of appeal are examined.
As to the violation of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act (노동쟁의조정법),
Upon examining the evidence cited in the lower court's judgment and the first instance judgment cited therein against the record, the lower court's action in finding each of the criminal facts stated in the judgment—that the Defendant engaged in industrial action without going through lawful procedures—can be accepted, and it cannot be said that there was a misapprehension of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence.
Even if extended work is something that is carried out by agreement between the parties, if the Defendant incited workers to collectively refuse the extended work that they had customarily performed, thereby impeding the normal operation of the company's business, this must be regarded as industrial action.
Further, even if there existed, as the argument contends, circumstances in the cause of the industrial action that could be attributed to the responsibility of the employer side, this does not mean that the criminal acts stated in the judgment fail to be established.
The remaining arguments raised in the argument ultimately amount to criticizing the fact-finding, which is a matter within the exclusive authority of the lower court (according to the record, it can be seen that the Defendant confessed to all of the facts charged in this portion at the first trial date of the first instance), and are therefore without merit.
As to the point of obstruction of business,
Upon examining the record, the lower court's fact-finding on this point can also be accepted, and even if such conduct was intended to strengthen the solidarity of the union, this does not constitute an obstacle to the lower court's fact-finding or to the establishment of the crime of obstruction of business.
As to the point of assault,
Upon examining the record, the lower court's action in finding the criminal facts—that the Defendant assaulted the victim as stated in the judgment, on the grounds of restraining the Defendant's conduct of disrupting operations by beating a gong (kkwaenggari) during working hours—is justified and can be accepted, and such conduct cannot be regarded, as the argument contends, as legitimate self-defense.
In the end, since none of the grounds of appeal have merit, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Kim Ju-han (Presiding Justice), Choi Jae-ho, Yun Kwan, Kim Yong-jun