Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Assistance to an unlawful labour action and the close-relation test for accomplice liability
Supreme Court, Sept. 16, 2021, 2015Do12632 (judgment)
Case name: 특수공무집행방해치상·업무방해·폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)·건조물침입
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Was the enforcement of an attachment title by bailiffs lawful official duty, and did a union officer's participation in a gate rally, delivery of a union document and encouragement at a sit-in amount to aiding and abetting obstruction of business?
Holding
The Court held that where an official performs his duties on the judgment that the measure is appropriate within his personal and material capacity, that duty performance may not be called unlawful unless it lost objective justification and was manifestly unreasonable, so Defendant 1's convictions for aggravated obstruction of official duties injuring another and obstruction of business stood. Aiding and abetting requires that the assistance bear a close relation to the principal's crime and make a real contribution to it, and the scope of the offence must be judged with care so that the constitutional rights of those who assist a labour union are not chilled. The encouragement given inside the occupation site met that requirement, but participation in the gate rally and delivery of a union document did not.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위법한 쟁의행위에 대한 조력행위가 업무방해방조에 해당하는지 판단할 때는 헌법이 보장하는 위와 같은 기본권이 위축되지 않도록 업무방해방조죄의 성립 범위를 신중하게 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In determining whether an act of assistance in relation to an unlawful collective action constitutes aiding and abetting obstruction of business, the scope of the establishment of the crime of aiding and abetting obstruction of business must be carefully determined so that the aforesaid fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not chilled.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인 2에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다. 피고인 1의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 2 is reversed, and the case in that portion is remanded to the Busan High Court. The final appeal of Defendant 1 is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 적법한 공무집행이란 그 행위가 공무원의 추상적 권한에 속할 뿐 아니라 구체적으로도 그 권한 내에 있어야 하고 직무행위로서의 중요한 방식을 갖추어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
Here, lawful performance of official duties means that the act must fall not only within the abstract authority of the public official but also specifically within that authority, and must take the essential form of an act in the course of duties
Factors
- 정범의 범죄 실현과 밀접한 관련이 있고
- 정범으로 하여금 구체적 위험을 실현시키거나 범죄결과를 발생시킬 기회를 높이는 등으로 정범의 범죄 실현에 현실적인 기여를 하였다고 평가할 수 있어야 한다
- 근로자나 노동조합이 노동3권을 행사할 때 제3자의 조력을 폭넓게 받을 수 있도록 할 필요가 있고
- 공무원이 구체적 상황에 비추어 그 인적·물적 능력의 범위 내에서 적절한 조치라는 판단에 따라 직무를 수행한 경우에는
- 정범의 범죄 실현과 밀접한 관련이 없는 행위를 도와준 데 지나지 않는 경우에는
Unofficial English translation
• is closely related to the principal's accomplishment of the crime, and
• must be capable of being evaluated as having made a real contribution to the principal's accomplishment of the crime, such as by enabling the principal to realize a specific danger or increasing the opportunity to produce a criminal result
• there is a need to ensure that workers or labor unions may broadly receive assistance from third parties when exercising the three fundamental labor rights, and
• where a public official performs his or her duties on the judgment that it is an appropriate measure within the scope of his or her personal and material capabilities in light of the specific circumstances,
• where one has done no more than assist an act that is not closely related to the principal's accomplishment of the crime,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2021. 9. 9. 선고 2017도19025 전원합의체 판결(공2021하, 1881)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do19025 decided September 9, 2021 (Gong 2021 Ha, 1881)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2010. 11. 11. 선고 2010도7621 판결, 대법원 2013. 8. 23. 선고 2011도4763 판결(공2013하, 1734), 대법원 2014. 5. 29. 선고 2013도2285 판결 / [3] 대법원 2021. 9. 9. 선고 2017도19025 전원합의체 판결(공2021하, 1881)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a union officer's chairing of a gate rally reaches the members occupying the production line inside, how much influence marks the point where an indirect and peripheral effect becomes a close relation to the principal offence?
The remand judgment of the Busan High Court on the rally participation and the delivery of the union document will show how the close-relation test is applied to an industrial union officer's ordinary activities. Any later decision refining the accomplice elements restated from Supreme Court Decision 2017Do19025, or a change to Article 32 or Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan High Court, in its judgment of 22 July 2015 (2014No781), upheld the first-instance judgment as to Defendant 1. It held that the bailiffs' enforcement, made under the enforcement title of the Ulsan District Court's decision 2012Kahap841, did not overall lack legality and that his illegality defence therefore failed, and that blocking the security guards carrying out the company's access control with force was obstruction of business and no justified act. On Defendant 2 it found him guilty of obstruction of business as an accomplice on all three items of conduct, the rally participation, the encouragement at the sit-in and the delivery of the union document.
Supreme Court standard: On Defendant 1 the Supreme Court found no error such as a misunderstanding of the law affecting the judgment, and dismissed his appeal. On Defendant 2 it held that the encouragement given inside the ongoing unlawful occupation closely related to the principal's crime and maintained and reinforced it, so that part of the finding was right, but that the rally participation produced only an indirect and peripheral effect in supporting the purpose of the labour action and the delivery of the document was an ordinary activity of the industrial union and did not directly encourage the occupation, so a close relation to the crime could not be asserted. Since the principal obstruction charge and the remaining convictions held in concurrence under the first clause of Article 37 of the Criminal Act had to fall with it, the whole part of the judgment as to Defendant 2 was reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- Assistance given directly at the site of an ongoing unlawful occupation, where it maintained and reinforced the offence being carried out, as the encouragement at the sit-in was found to be.
- A public official's duty performance that lost objective justification and was manifestly unreasonable, where the legality of the enforcement is in issue.
- A labour action that is itself lawful and does not constitute the principal offence of obstruction of business, so that no accomplice liability can attach.
Record verification notes
Set each item of conduct against its place and content: whether the person entered the occupation site or only appeared at the gate rally, his position and influence in the union and the actual words spoken, and the circumstances and content of the document delivered. Then check the enforcement title, the bailiffs' conduct and the time given for voluntary removal before relying on the official-duty rule, and confirm that the constitutional frame of Article 33(1), Article 21 and Article 10 of the Constitution was applied to the third party.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 공무집행방해죄에서 ‘적법한 공무집행’의 의미와 판단 기준 / 공무원이 구체적 상황에 비추어 그 인적·물적 능력의 범위 내에서 적절한 조치라는 판단에 따라 직무를 수행한 경우, 그 위법 여부(한정 소극) [2] 쟁의행위가 업무방해죄에 해당한다는 정을 알면서 제3자가 쟁의행위의 실행을 용이하게 한 경우, 업무방해방조죄가 성립할 수 있는지 여부(적극) / 위법한 쟁의행위에 대한 조력행위가 업무방해방조에 해당하는지 판단할 때 유의하여야 할 사항 [3] 방조범이 성립하기 위한 요건 / 정범의 범죄 실현과 밀접한 관련이 없는 행위를 도와준 데 지나지 않는 경우, 방조범이 성립하는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of 'lawful performance of official duties' in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and the criteria for its determination / Whether the act is unlawful where a public official performs his or her duties on the judgment that it is an appropriate measure within the scope of his or her personal and material capabilities in light of the specific circumstances (limited negative) [2] Whether the crime of aiding and abetting obstruction of business may be established where a third party facilitates the execution of a collective action knowing that the collective action constitutes the crime of obstruction of business (affirmative) / Matters to be noted in determining whether an act of assistance in relation to an unlawful collective action constitutes aiding and abetting obstruction of business [3] Requirements for the establishment of an accomplice by aiding / Whether an accomplice by aiding is established where one has done no more than assist an act that is not closely related to the principal's accomplishment of the crime (negative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 공무집행방해죄는 공무원의 직무집행이 적법한 경우에 성립한다. 여기서 적법한 공무집행이란 그 행위가 공무원의 추상적 권한에 속할 뿐 아니라 구체적으로도 그 권한 내에 있어야 하고 직무행위로서의 중요한 방식을 갖추어야 한다. 추상적인 권한에 속하는 공무원의 어떠한 공무집행이 적법한지 여부는 행위 당시의 구체적 상황에 기하여 객관적·합리적으로 판단하여야 한다. 한편 공무원이 구체적 상황에 비추어 그 인적·물적 능력의 범위 내에서 적절한 조치라는 판단에 따라 직무를 수행한 경우에는, 그러한 직무수행이 객관적 정당성을 상실하여 현저하게 불합리한 것으로 인정되지 않는 한 이를 위법하다고 할 수 없다. [2] 쟁의행위가 업무방해죄에 해당하는 경우 제3자가 그러한 정을 알면서 쟁의행위의 실행을 용이하게 한 경우에는 업무방해방조죄가 성립할 수 있다. 다만 헌법 제33조 제1항이 규정하고 있는 노동3권을 실질적으로 보장하기 위해서는 근로자나 노동조합이 노동3권을 행사할 때 제3자의 조력을 폭넓게 받을 수 있도록 할 필요가 있고, 나아가 근로자나 노동조합에 조력하는 제3자도 헌법 제21조에 따른 표현의 자유나 헌법 제10조에 내재된 일반적 행동의 자유를 가지고 있으므로, 위법한 쟁의행위에 대한 조력행위가 업무방해방조에 해당하는지 판단할 때는 헌법이 보장하는 위와 같은 기본권이 위축되지 않도록 업무방해방조죄의 성립 범위를 신중하게 판단하여야 한다. [3] 방조범은 정범에 종속하여 성립하는 범죄이므로 방조행위와 정범의 범죄 실현 사이에는 인과관계가 필요하다. 방조범이 성립하려면 방조행위가 정범의 범죄 실현과 밀접한 관련이 있고 정범으로 하여금 구체적 위험을 실현시키거나 범죄결과를 발생시킬 기회를 높이는 등으로 정범의 범죄 실현에 현실적인 기여를 하였다고 평가할 수 있어야 한다. 정범의 범죄 실현과 밀접한 관련이 없는 행위를 도와준 데 지나지 않는 경우에는 방조범이 성립하지 않는다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인 2에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다. 피고인 1의 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below concerning Defendant 2 is reversed, and the case in that portion is remanded to the Busan High Court. The final appeal of Defendant 1 is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제136조 [2] 헌법 제10조, 제21조, 제33조 제1항, 형법 제32조, 제314조 제1항 [3] 형법 제32조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger