Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 2004도5035 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/8841 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 2004도5035

Violation of the Local Public Officials Act and the Assembly and Demonstration Act지방공무원법위반·집회및시위에관한법률위반

Decided2004. 10. 15. Court대법원Appeal dismissed; the defendants' conviction for violating the Local Public Officials Act was upheld (though on the narrower ground of 'collective acts for purposes other than official duties' rather than 'labor movement').
한국어·Print
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

Local public officials (지방공무원) attended a rally protesting police interference with a demonstration, raising the question of whether this violated the Local Public Officials Act (지방공무원법). The Supreme Court held that while this did not constitute a 'labor movement' (노동운동), it did amount to a 'collective act for purposes other than official duties' (공무 이외의 일을 위한 집단행위), which is also prohibited under the Act. The Court defined 'labor movement' as activity related to the three fundamental labor rights (노동삼권: right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action), distinguishing it from a broader category of prohibited collective conduct.

Key takeaways
  • CaseLocal public officials joined a rally protesting police obstruction of an earlier demonstration.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled this was not a 'labor movement' but still qualified as a prohibited 'collective act for purposes other than official duties,' upholding the conviction.
  • LessonPublic officials should be aware that participating in protest rallies, even those unrelated to labor rights, may still violate restrictions on collective political or public activities under civil service law.
Issues
  • The meaning and scope of 'labor movement' prohibited under the Local Public Officials Act
  • How to interpret 'collective acts for purposes other than official duties' under the Local Public Officials Act
  • The scope of reversal on appeal when a single appeal challenges a judgment involving both convictions and acquittals for multiple concurrent offenses (경합범)
Key reasoning

Under Article 58 of the Local Public Officials Act, the term 'labor movement' refers specifically to activities related to the three fundamental labor rights—the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, and the right to collective action. By contrast, 'collective acts for purposes other than official duties' refers more broadly to any collective conduct undertaken for purposes contrary to the public interest that involves neglecting one's duty to devote full attention to official work. Since the defendants' participation in the protest rally was not an act of forming a labor union or engaging in ordinary union activities, it did not qualify as a 'labor movement.' However, because the rally was a collective action pursuing a goal unrelated to and potentially adverse to the public interest, and involved neglect of official duties, it fell within the prohibited category of 'collective acts for purposes other than official duties.'

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] The main text of Article 58, Paragraph 1 of the Local Public Officials Act (지방공무원법) provides that "public officials shall not engage in labor movements or other collective acts for purposes other than official duties." Here, in light of the relationship between the Constitution and the Local Public Officials Act, and the fact that our Constitution guarantees the three labor rights separately from the freedoms of assembly and association while placing constitutional restrictions on public officials only with respect to the three labor rights, the "labor movement" prohibited herein means the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, and the right to collective action. The restricted right to organize refers to the right of subordinate workers to form, join, and engage in activities within a labor union, which is an economic association organized vis-à-vis the employer for the purpose of maintaining and improving working conditions, etc. Furthermore, "collective acts for purposes other than official duties" does not mean all collective acts performed by public officials for any matter not pertaining to official duties, but rather, considering comprehensively Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association, the legislative purpose of the Local Public Officials Act, and the duty of good faith and the duty of devotion to duty under the Local Public Officials Act, it means "collective acts undertaken for a purpose contrary to the public interest, which have the effect of, among other things, neglecting the duty of devotion to duty."

[2] Where, with respect to crimes in a concurrent offense relationship under the first clause of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (형법), the court below rendered a judgment of guilty on some counts and not guilty on others, and the defendant did not appeal while only the prosecutor appealed, not limited to the acquitted portion but as to the entirety, even if only the prosecutor's appeal as to the acquitted portion is found to have merit, the guilty portion of the judgment below must be reversed together with the acquitted portion; therefore, the appellate court must reverse the judgment below in its entirety.

[3] A case in which it was held that, where it was evident that the appellate court had made an erroneous entry in the scope of reversal of the first instance judgment in the text of its judgment, the written judgment was corrected pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure (형사소송규칙).

Full text (English, AI translation) 5,922 chars

[Defendant] Defendant 1 and 1 other person
[Appellant] Defendants
[Defense Counsel] Attorney Lee Jae-rak
[Judgment Below] Chuncheon District Court, Gangneung Branch, Decision 2003No213, rendered July 22, 2004

[Order]

The appeals are dismissed. In the order of the judgment below, the phrase "The part of the judgment below finding the defendants not guilty is reversed" shall be corrected to read "The judgment of the first instance is reversed."

[Reasoning]

1. The main text of Article 58, Paragraph 1 of the Local Public Officials Act (지방공무원법) provides that "public officials shall not engage in labor movements or other collective acts for purposes other than official duties." Here, in light of the relationship between the Constitution and the Local Public Officials Act, and the fact that our Constitution guarantees the three labor rights separately from the freedoms of assembly and association while placing constitutional restrictions on public officials only with respect to the three labor rights, the term "labor movement" prohibited herein refers to the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, and the right to collective action. The right to organize that is restricted refers to the right of subordinate workers to form, join, and engage in activities in a labor union, which is an economic association organized against employers for the purpose of maintaining and improving working conditions and the like. Furthermore, "collective act for purposes other than official duties" does not mean every collective act by public officials for any matter that does not fall within official duties; rather, taking into comprehensive consideration Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association, the legislative purpose of the Local Public Officials Act, and the duty of good faith and duty of devotion to duty under the Local Public Officials Act, it refers to "a collective act for a purpose contrary to the public interest that has the effect of, among other things, neglecting the duty of devotion to duty" (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2310, decided February 14, 1992).

According to the record, it can be recognized that the defendants did not participate in preparatory acts for the formation of a labor union, or in acts of establishing a labor union, or in an assembly falling within the ordinary activities of a labor union. Rather, public officials belonging to the Donghae City Workplace Council attempted to attend a "rally to demand legal guarantee of the establishment of a public officials' union" held in Wonju on April 27, 2002, but were obstructed by police officers of the Donghae Police Station; the defendants engaged in collective action by way of an illegal assembly and demonstration by attending the "Rally to Denounce the Donghae Police Station for Human Rights Violations" held by Non-Indicted Person, the head of the Gangwon Regional Headquarters of ○○ Federation of Trade Unions, in protest of that obstruction. Such activity of the defendants alone cannot be regarded as an act of establishing a labor union or an ordinary activity of a labor union, and therefore the defendants' conduct cannot be deemed to constitute a "labor movement" as prohibited under Article 58, Paragraph 1 of the Local Public Officials Act. However, this constitutes a collective act for a purpose contrary to the public interest that has the effect of, among other things, neglecting the duty of devotion to duty, and thus falls under a "collective act for purposes other than official duties." Accordingly, although the judgment below erred in its interpretation and application of the term "labor movement" under Article 58, Paragraph 1 of the Local Public Officials Act by finding the defendants guilty of violating the Local Public Officials Act on the ground that their conduct constituted a "labor movement" under that provision, the conclusion that the defendants' conduct constitutes a violation of Article 58, Paragraph 1 of the Local Public Officials Act is nonetheless justified and may be affirmed. Therefore, there is no error in violation of statutes affecting the judgment as argued in the grounds of appeal.

2. Meanwhile, where, with respect to offenses in a concurrent-crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (형법), the judgment below found the defendant guilty in part and not guilty in part, and the defendant did not appeal while only the prosecutor appealed against the entirety of the judgment, not limited to the not-guilty part, then even if only the prosecutor's appeal as to the not-guilty part is found to have merit, the guilty part of the judgment below must be reversed together with the not-guilty part; accordingly, the appellate court must reverse the judgment below in its entirety (see Supreme Court Decision 71Do905, decided July 27, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4947, decided July 26, 2002, etc.). Although the court below, in the order of its judgment, expressed itself as if it were reversing only the guilty part of the first-instance judgment, its reasoning not only states that "the judgment of the first instance is reversed" but also imposes an aggravated sentence by treating the guilty part of the first instance and the part to be reversed and found guilty as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. This clearly constitutes a case where the order of the judgment was erroneously stated.

3. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed, and since there is a clear error in the order of the judgment below, it shall be corrected pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure (형사소송규칙). This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order, by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justice Yoo Ji-dam (Presiding Justice), Bae Ki-won, Lee Kang-guk (Justice in Charge), Kim Yong-dam

【판결요지】

[1] 지방공무원법 제58조 제1항 본문은 "공무원은 노동운동 기타 공무 이외의 일을 위한 집단행위를 하여서는 아니 된다."고 규정하고 있는바, 여기서 금지하고 있는 ‘노동운동’이라 함은, 헌법과 지방공무원법의 관계 및 우리 헌법이 노동삼권을 집회, 결사의 자유와 구분하여 보장하면서도 노동삼권에 한하여 공무원에 대한 헌법적 제한규정을 두고 있는 점에 비추어 단결권, 단체교섭권, 단체행동권을 의미하고, 제한되는 단결권은 종속근로자들이 사용자에 대하여 근로조건의 유지, 개선 등을 목적으로 조직한 경제적 결사인 노동조합을 결성하고 그에 가입, 활동하는 권리를 말하며, 또한 ‘공무 이외의 일을 위한 집단행위’라고 함은, 공무에 속하지 아니하는 어떤 일을 위하여 공무원들이 하는 모든 집단적 행위를 의미하는 것이 아니라 언론·출판·집회·결사의 자유를 보장하고 있는 헌법 제21조 제1항과 지방공무원법의 입법취지, 지방공무원법상의 성실의무와 직무전념의무 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 ‘공익에 반하는 목적을 위하여 직무전념의무를 해태하는 등의 영향을 가져오는 집단적 행위’를 말한다.

[2] 형법 제37조 전단의 경합범 관계에 있는 죄에 대하여 일부는 유죄, 일부는 무죄를 선고한 원심판결에 대하여 피고인은 상소하지 아니하고, 검사만이 무죄부분에 한정하지 아니하고 전체에 대하여 상소한 경우에 무죄부분에 대한 검사의 상소만 이유 있는 때에도 원심판결의 유죄부분은 무죄부분과 함께 파기되어야 하므로 상소심으로서는 원심판결 전부를 파기하여야 한다.

[3] 항소심이 그 판결주문에서 제1심판결에 대한 파기범위를 오기하였음이 명백한 때에 해당하여 형사소송규칙 제25조에 따라 재판서를 경정한 사례.

【참조조문】

[1] 지방공무원법 제58조 제1항, 제82조, 헌법 제21조 제1항, 제33조

[2] 형법 제37조, 형사소송법 제383조, 제391조

[3] 형사소송규칙 제25조

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 1992. 2. 14. 선고 90도2310 판결(공1992, 1078) / [2] 대법원 1971. 7. 27. 선고 71도905 판결(집19-2, 형62), 대법원 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2001도4947 판결(공2002하, 2127)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 2,069자 · 펼쳐 보기

【피 고 인】 피고인 1 외 1인

【상 고 인】 피고인들

【변 호 인】 변호사 이재락

【원심판결】 춘천지법 강릉지원 2004. 7. 22. 선고 2003노213 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다. 원심판결의 주문 중 "원심판결 중 무죄부분을 파기한다."를, "제1심판결을 파기한다."로 경정한다.

【이 유】1. 지방공무원법 제58조 제1항 본문은 "공무원은 노동운동 기타 공무 이외의 일을 위한 집단행위를 하여서는 아니 된다."고 규정하고 있는바, 여기서 금지하고 있는 ‘노동운동’이라 함은, 헌법과 지방공무원법의 관계 및 우리 헌법이 노동삼권을 집회, 결사의 자유와 구분하여 보장하면서도 노동삼권에 한하여 공무원에 대한 헌법적 제한규정을 두고 있는 점에 비추어 단결권, 단체교섭권, 단체행동권을 의미하고, 제한되는 단결권은 종속근로자들이 사용자에 대하여 근로조건의 유지, 개선 등을 목적으로 조직한 경제적 결사인 노동조합을 결성하고 그에 가입, 활동하는 권리를 말하며, 또한 ‘공무 이외의 일을 위한 집단행위’라고 함은, 공무에 속하지 아니하는 어떤 일을 위하여 공무원들이 하는 모든 집단적 행위를 의미하는 것이 아니라 언론·출판·집회·결사의 자유를 보장하고 있는 헌법 제21조 제1항과 지방공무원법의 입법취지, 지방공무원법상의 성실의무와 직무전념의무 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 ‘공익에 반하는 목적을 위하여 직무전념의무를 해태하는 등의 영향을 가져오는 집단적 행위’를 말한다고 할 것이다(대법원 1992. 2. 14. 선고 90도2310 판결 참조).

기록에 의하면, 피고인들은 노동조합의 결성을 위한 준비행위 또는 노동조합의 설립행위 내지 노동조합의 통상활동에 속하는 집회에 참석한 것이 아니라, 동해시 직장협의회 소속 공무원들이 2002. 4. 27. 원주에서 개최된 ‘공무원노조설립의 합법적 보장을 촉구하기 위한 집회’에 참석하려 하였으나 동해경찰서 경찰관들이 방해하였다는 이유로 이를 항의하기 위하여 ○○노총 강원지역 본부장 공소외인이 개최한 ‘인권탄압 동해경찰서 규탄대회’에 참석하여 불법집회와 시위의 방법으로 집단 행동을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이와 같은 피고인들의 활동만으로는 노동조합의 설립행위 내지 노동조합의 통상활동이라고 볼 수는 없으므로 피고인들의 행위가 지방공무원법 제58조 제1항에서 금지하고 있는 노동운동에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없으나, 이는 공익에 반하는 목적을 위하여 직무전념의무를 해태하는 등의 영향을 가져오는 집단행위로서 공무 이외의 일을 위한 집단행위에 해당한다고 할 것이므로, 피고인들의 위와 같은 행위가 지방공무원법 제58조 제1항의 노동운동에 해당한다는 이유로 피고인들에 대한 지방공무원법위반죄를 유죄로 인정한 원심의 판단에는 지방공무원법 제58조 제1항의 ‘노동운동’의 해석적용에 관한 법령위반의 위법이 있으나, 피고인들의 행위가 지방공무원법 제58조 제1항 위반죄에 해당한다는 결론에 있어서는 정당하여 수긍할 수 있으므로, 거기에 상고이유로 주장하는 바와 같은 판결에 영향을 미친 법령위반의 위법은 없다.

2. 한편, 형법 제37조 전단의 경합범 관계에 있는 죄에 대하여 일부는 유죄, 일부는 무죄를 선고한 원심판결에 대하여 피고인은 상소하지 아니하고, 검사만이 무죄부분에 한정하지 아니하고 전체에 대하여 상소한 경우에 무죄부분에 대한 검사의 상소만 이유 있는 때에도 원심판결의 유죄부분은 무죄부분과 함께 파기되어야 하므로 상소심으로서는 원심판결 전부를 파기하여야 하는바(대법원 1971. 7. 27. 선고 71도905 판결, 2002. 7. 26. 선고 2001도4947 판결 등 참조), 원심은 그 판결주문에서 제1심판결의 유죄부분만을 파기하는 것처럼 표현하고 있으나, 그 판결이유를 보면 제1심판결을 파기한다고 밝히고 있을 뿐만 아니라 제1심의 유죄부분과 파기되어 유죄로 할 부분을 형법 제37조의 전단의 경합범으로 가중 처단하고 있으므로 이는 판결주문을 잘못 기재하였음이 명백한 때에 해당한다.

3. 그러므로 상고를 기각하기로 하고, 원심판결의 주문에 명백한 오류가 있으므로 형사소송규칙 제25조에 따라 경정하기로 하여 관여 대법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 유지담(재판장) 배기원 이강국(주심) 김용담

Related statutes

지방공무원법 제58조헌법 제21조집회및시위에관한법률형법 제37조

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
2003도2960 · 대법원 2005-04-15
Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violence, etc. (폭력
#2
90도2310 · 대법원 1992-02-14
Violation of the State Public Officials Act (국가공무원법위반)
#3
2005도3490 · 대법원 2006-02-10
집회및시위에관한법률위반·지방공무원법위반
#4
2007도11044 · 대법원 2008-03-14
지방공무원법위반
#5
2006고단3544,2007고단370(병합) · 대전지방법원 2007-05-04
특수공무집행방해·지방공무원법위반

Cases citing this decision

2007도7514 · 대법원 2011-04-28
특수공무집행방해·지방공무원법위반
2006두16786 · 대법원 2009-06-23
파면처분취소
2007도11044 · 대법원 2008-03-14
지방공무원법위반
2007도11045 · 대법원 2008-02-14
지방공무원법위반
2006두16991 · 대법원 2007-04-13
징계처분취소

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)