‘Our Union Employment Demand’ Tower Crane Occupying Union Members Fined in First Trial

Guilty Only of Obstruction of Business Charges

[Asia Economy Reporter Oh Gyumin] Members of the Korean Federation of Trade Unions (KFTU) who were prosecuted for occupying a tower crane to demand employment for their union members were sentenced to fines in the first trial.

The Seoul Western District Court Criminal Division 9 (Judge Park Miseon) announced on the 22nd that it recognized only the charge of obstruction of business against Choi (63) and Kim (54), who were indicted for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (joint property damage, etc.) and obstruction of business, and sentenced them to a fine of 5 million won.

The court stated the sentencing reasons, saying, "The defendants' actions obstructed the victim's construction work, and the occupation of the tower crane lasted about 52 hours, which is not short," but also noted, "The victim expressed a desire not to punish the defendants, and Choi has no prior criminal record."

Choi and Kim, union members affiliated with the KFTU, are accused of occupying a tower crane and staging a high-altitude sit-in at an apartment construction site in Susaek-dong, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, around 5 p.m. on March 25 last year, strongly demanding and pressuring for the employment of KFTU union members, thereby obstructing construction work for about two days.

According to the court, they conducted this protest in response to the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) pressuring the victim to employ their own union members.

Meanwhile, the prosecution also applied charges of joint property damage, claiming that they cut the lock on the entrance door with a hand grinder to climb the tower crane, but the court acquitted them of this charge.

The court said, "Considering that the CCTV footage of the defendants climbing the tower crane does not show any scene of cutting the lock and there are no witnesses, it is difficult to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed based solely on the evidence submitted by the prosecution."