|
【Main Issues and Holdings】
The Defendant signed a sales service contract with the owner of a car dealership and worked as a car sales representative, but was dismissed when the owner refused to renew the contract. The Defendant applied for relief and the Labor Commission issued a decision stating that “the dealership owner's termination of the sales service contract with the Defendant constituted an unfair labor practice and the dealership owner should immediately reinstate the Defendant,” but the dealership owner did not implement the reinstatement order. The Defendant then held one-person protests in front of the owner's store with a picket sign stating, “Dealership owners exploit and extort wages through labor exploitation and engage in unfair labor practice union repression,” and was charged with defaming the owner. Although the language used by the Defendant in the picket constitutes language that may defame the dealership owner, the Defendant's conduct is justified by Article 310 of the Criminal Act, considering its primary motive, purpose, and necessity.
|
