쟁의행위에 대한 업무방해죄 적용 비판 -대법원 판결 비판을 중심으로-

Article 314 of the Korean Penal Code stipulates the crime of 'interference with business.' It states that a person who interferes with the business of another by circulating false facts or fraudulent means, or by the threat of force, shall be punished. According to the Supreme Court's interpretation, the crime of 'interference with business' has been applied to picketing, collective refusal of labor, and all the strikes that interfere with the employer's right of business administration, even though not accompanied by violence. This Article criticizes the Supreme Court's interpretation virtually nullifies the constitutional right of strike. The exercise of the strike right per se is supposed to interfere with the business of an employer. The reason why the Constitution stipulates the strike right is to prevent the criminalization of strike. However, the Supreme Court's interpretation dwarfs the constitutional right. This Article further argues that collective refusal of labor without battery or intimidation produces only the civil legal matter, not the criminal; the criminalization of collective refusal of labor results in the approval of forced labor, which is constitutionally unacceptable; picketing without battery or intimidation should be de-criminalized; and even strikes that interfere with the employer's right of business administration should be allowed if the employer's exercise of the right accompanies with substantial changes of labor conditions.