The case holding that the crime of conflict is established since the victim of the traffic accident received money and valuables from the driver of the driver's of the accident beyond the scope permitted by social norms.

If the defendant, while being aware that the driver of the vehicle involved in an accident had suffered an injury requiring two weeks' medical treatment due to traffic accident, had the driver claimed excessive money and did not comply with the demand, and had the driver report it to the investigation agency, and received a gold of KRW 3,50,000 from the drinking person, it constitutes a crime of public conflict, since it constitutes a case where the defendant received the property by undermining the other party's exercise of right beyond the limit permitted by social norms as a means of receiving damages.

Article 350 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2093 delivered on December 14, 1982 (Gong1983,311) 84Do2644 delivered on September 10, 1985 (Gong1985,1363) 87Do1656 delivered on October 26, 1987 (Gong1987,1830)

Defendant and one other

Defendants

Seoul High Court Decision 89No1292 delivered on September 8, 1989

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the court below's finding of facts in the first instance court or maintaining it is acceptable and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

In addition, even if there are legitimate rights, if the act is not recognized as legitimate exercise of rights, such as the case of receiving property or property benefits by means of intimidation by taking advantage of the exercise of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do2093, Dec. 14, 1982). The defendant's deep depreciation caused by traffic accident, and the defendant's right to claim compensation for damages thereby, requires the co-defendant of the first instance court, the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident, to pay money to the co-defendant of the first instance court, who is the user of the vehicle (the court of first instance or the court below acknowledged that the defendant 1 sustained injury requiring two weeks medical treatment, but according to the defendant's statement of the first instance court, the defendant did not report to the investigation agency, and if the defendant did not have any influence on the defendant's violation of the Criminal Procedure Act, it constitutes a so-called "no more than 300,000 won," and the defendant's allegation that the defendant was punished for violation of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, as recognized by the court below, if the defendants' act does not constitute a justifiable act under Article 2 of the Trade Union Act, and whether the defendants' act was dismissed from the company to which the defendants belong, and whether it constitutes an unfair labor practice in violation of Article 39 (1) of the same Act and constitutes an unfair labor practice does not affect the result of the case. Accordingly, all arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)