Supreme Court Remands Case, Acquitting 7 Union Members Who Protested at Homeplus Store

Guilty Verdicts for Obstruction of Business and Joint Residential Intrusion in First and Second Trials

Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Court overturned the guilty verdict against Homeplus union members who protested by visiting a store where the company representative was present to oppose the dismissal and transfer personnel orders of union members.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 13th that it overturned the original ruling, which recognized all charges and sentenced four union members to a fine of 1.5 million won while suspending the sentence for the remaining members, and remanded the case to the Seoul Southern District Court in the appeal trial of seven members of the Homeplus branch of the National Mart Industry Union, who were indicted for obstruction of business and joint trespassing under the Act on the Punishment of Violent Acts.

Regarding the obstruction of business charge, the court stated, "The original court's judgment, which recognized the establishment of obstruction of business on the grounds that the defendants exercised 'force,' misinterpreted the legal principles concerning 'force' in obstruction of business, which affected the judgment," and added, "The grounds for appeal pointing this out are valid."

Regarding the joint trespassing charge under the Act on the Punishment of Violent Acts, the court explained, "The original court's judgment, which recognized the establishment of trespassing based mainly on the presumed intention of the manager, misinterpreted the legal principles concerning the establishment of this crime, affecting the judgment," and stated, "The grounds for appeal pointing this out are valid," thus explaining the reason for overturning and remanding.

On May 28, 2020, seven union members of the Homeplus branch of the union, upon hearing that the company representative would visit the Homeplus Gangseo store as part of a site inspection schedule, went to the store and held a protest inside the store for about 30 minutes by holding placards reading 'Unfair dismissal' and shouting, "Stop forced transfers. Do not do integrated operations. Employees are suffering. Stop unfair dismissal."

They also followed employees conducting inspection duties in the food section at a distance of about 1 to 2 meters, holding placards nearby or shouting, "Stop forced transfers," and "We want to work."

The prosecution judged that such actions by the union members constituted obstruction of business. They also considered the fact that some union members filmed the protest scenes with cameras as an exercise of force. Furthermore, since they entered the store against the presumed intention of the store manager for the purpose of a surprise protest, they were charged with joint trespassing under the Act on the Punishment of Violent Acts, which applies when two or more people jointly trespass a building.

Previously, the first and second trial courts agreed with the prosecution's judgment and recognized guilt on both charges.

The first trial court sentenced four union members to a fine of 1.5 million won and suspended the sentence for the remaining three.

At that time, the court stated, "While the legitimate union activities of labor unions should be guaranteed, union activities within the workplace must comply with reasonable regulations or restrictions based on the employer's facility management rights," and added, "The majority of the defendants held placards and continuously followed the victims inside the store used by general customers during working hours, shouting loudly and filming with cameras, which can be seen as exercising force sufficient to suppress the victims' free will, and such acts posed a risk of interfering with the on-site inspection duties performed by the victims."

It also judged, "Even if the Homeplus Gangseo store is generally a place where entry is allowed and some defendants were normally permitted to enter, since they entered against the presumed intention of the victims and their actions effectively disturbed the peace of residence, it is reasonable to recognize the crime of trespassing."

The defendants appealed, arguing, "Entering the store to conduct a publicity campaign cannot be considered against the victims' will, the peace of residence was not disturbed, their actions cannot be seen as exercising force, and it was a legitimate union activity constituting a lawful act," but the second trial court rejected the appeal.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment was completely different.

First, regarding the joint trespassing charge, the court cited a Supreme Court ruling stating, "If one enters a building generally open to the public without restrictions or prohibitions by the manager using ordinary methods, it cannot be considered an act that disturbs the actual peaceful state, and thus does not constitute trespassing as defined in the law."

The court pointed out, "The second-floor store of Homeplus Gangseo that the defendants entered is a place generally open without restrictions on entry qualifications during business hours. The defendants entered through the main entrance and store entrance used by customers during business hours without being stopped by security personnel or sneaking in when security was absent, without taking any special measures," and stated, "Since they entered a store generally open to the public without restrictions or prohibitions by the manager using ordinary methods, it cannot be considered an act disturbing the actual peaceful state, and thus does not constitute trespassing as defined in the law."

Furthermore, "There was no explicit prohibition of entry by the manager of Homeplus Gangseo, and even if the defendants entered the store against the presumed intention of the manager as alleged in the indictment, that alone cannot be evaluated as entering with an act disturbing the actual peaceful state," concluding, "Therefore, the defendants are not guilty of trespassing."

The court also judged that the obstruction of business charge, which was recognized as guilty in the first and second trials, cannot be upheld because the essential element of 'exercise of force' cannot be recognized.

As grounds for this judgment, the court cited ▲ the number of participants in the protest was only seven, of whom four were women and one of the three men was in his 50s, while about 20 or more people, including the victims, participated in the on-site inspection ▲ the defendants followed the victims conducting inspection duties in the food section at a distance of about 1 to 2 meters, holding placards or shouting slogans, but the victims continued their inspection work for about 30 minutes ▲ one defendant filmed the scene, but this was to inform other union members of the activities, not to film the victims.

The Supreme Court judged that these actions cannot be seen as exercising force sufficient to suppress the victims' free will.

Additionally, the court took into account that the defendants' purpose in protesting at the store was to meet directly with the CEO, who holds the authority over personnel policy decisions and personnel discretion, to protest dismissals and transfer orders or request reinstatement and withdrawal of transfer orders, rather than to obstruct or halt the management duties of the Homeplus Gangseo branch manager. It also noted that similar protests by union members occurred at other stores besides Gangseo in line with the CEO's site inspection schedule, but no complaints or other actions were taken elsewhere.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.