[2] In a case where the defendant assaulted the victim to be exempted from the payment of taxi charges on the ground that the destination differs after getting on and off a taxi driving by the victim, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in finding a crime of conflict by viewing otherwise, even though the defendant did not have an act of disposal by allowing the defendant to be exempted from the payment of taxi charges, even if the defendant did not have an act of disposal in a passive and passive manner with respect to the payment of taxi charges

[2] In a case where: (a) the Defendant intending to go away from a taxi in the first place after getting on and off the taxi in which the victim was driving; (b) the victim was waiting to drive away from another place; (c) the victim was waiting to drive away from the taxi; and (d) the Defendant again demanded the payment of the taxi fee; and (c) the Defendant again went on the victim’s face, etc.; (d) the Defendant continued to demand the payment of the taxi fee, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which recognized the crime of public action, even though the Defendant could not be deemed to have committed an act of disposal that allows the Defendant to be exempted from paying the taxi fee even if the Defendant was able to go on a passive and passive basis by assaulting the victim; and (e) the Defendant cannot be said to have committed an act of disposal that allows the Defendant to escape from paying the taxi fee.

In light of Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a defendant’s assertion to the effect that the punishment is too excessive is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where the court below rendered a fine against the defendant, unless the punishment of death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years is imposed.

2. We examine ex officio.

A. The summary of the instant facts charged is as follows.

Around 00:10 on April 3, 201, the Defendant: (a) boarded in a private taxi (vehicle number omitted) driven by the victim Nonindicted Party (the victim’s age of 45) on the front of the Dongdaemun-gu Police Station located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun. On the same day, around 00:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (b) stated that “In order to avoid the payment of taxi charges on the road prior to the ○○○ Elementary School in the Dong-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 3, 201, the Defendant: (c) carried the victim’s neck that the victim would have changed the taxi charges depending on his getting off from the vehicle; (d) 4-5 times the face of the victim would have escaped, and (d) 14,000 won of the taxi charges.

B. In order to establish a crime of conflict due to the acquisition of pecuniary benefits, there must be an act of action by which the person subject to conflict, such as assault or intimidation, gives pecuniary benefits to the person subject to conflict. Of course, such act of action is sufficient without necessarily engaging in an act, and is also sufficient to cause omission, and thus, even if the person subject to conflict seizes his/her own pecuniary benefits during the implied period by causing the person subject to conflict, the crime of conflict may be established. However, in the above sense, the other party to the assault did not engage in an act of action in the above sense, but rather, if the escape is merely an act of action by assaulting the other party and escape at the scene to avoid granting legal obligation, thereby hindering the other party from realizing his/her pecuniary benefits that he/she could have gained by the escape, then the perpetrator cannot be held liable to commit a crime of conflict.

C. According to the records, the defendant gets on and off a taxi as stated in the above facts charged, and then asked the defendant to pay taxi fees of 14,000 won for the purpose of avoiding the payment of the taxi fees on the road in front of the same military-based ○○○○ Elementary School in Seocheon-gu, Seo-gu, Dong-gu. The victim demanded the defendant to pay the taxi fees of 14,000 won for the purpose of getting on and off a taxi. The victim demanded that the victim pay the taxi fees of 14,000 won for the purpose of getting on and off a taxi. The victim gets on and off the face of the victim several occasions, and the victim gets on and off the face of the victim to receive the taxi fees from the defendant, even if the victim gets on and off the face of the defendant, the victim gets on and off the taxi at around 01:10 on the same day, and the victim again requested the defendant to pay the taxi fees by assaulting the victim and demanding the defendant to do so by committing an act of assault against the victim (the victim).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's liability for the crime of extortion is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of extortion or by recognizing facts contrary to the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

D. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the crime of conflict should be reversed. This part of the judgment of the court below should be determined as a single punishment for all of the crimes of assault and concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which the court below found guilty. Thus, the judgment of

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)