합법적 권리행사행위에 대하여 협박으로 처벌하기 위한 기준, 특히 노동조합이 주체일 때

Abstract

We live with many ‘legitimate’ threats, but there is no clear answer about when they become crimes. Recently prosecutors are indicting laborers for blackmail or coercion by questioning several expressions during collective bargainings of labor unions. The criminal law only stipulates to punish “those who threaten,” “those who blackmail,” and “those who interfere with the exercise of rights or cause people to do things they are not obliged to do.” The court has set forth a standard that even the exercise of a legal right, it could be punished if it is an ‘abuse of rights’ or if there is no ‘means-ends relevance’. By demanding an overly strict ‘relationship’, such as that it be a means for the ‘original purpose’ of the right, the scope of punishment is too expanding. This article first reviews the ‘means-ends relevance’ (or ‘abuse of rights’) standard presented by courts, and analyzes American legislation and cases, especially the interpretation of extortion under the Hobbs Act in the United States, for comparative legal discussion. Based on the premise that different treatments are required depending on the type of act, I attempted to present types of acts with relatively clear grounds and standards for the punishment. Regarding labor unions, when a lawful threat is done for the sake of the union or for labor union activities, the legitimacy of the purpose must be acknowledged, and therefore it should not be punished. In addition, in cases where the actor’s purpose is to stop the other party’s illegal or unjust actions, or to prevent the other party from taking on an unqualified status, legitimacy must be recognized.