"Why Charge Double the Fare?"... SRT Fare Dodger Who Assaulted Crew Member Fined

2nd Trial: "Flight Attendants Have Discretion to Charge Within 30 Times the Standard Fare"

SRT Suseo Station, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. The photo is unrelated to the article content. Photo by Jang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A man who caused a disturbance after being caught riding the Suseo High-Speed Railway (SRT) train without a ticket and being asked by a crew member to pay double the fare was sentenced to a fine in both the first and second trials.

According to the court on the 1st, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Appeal Division 1-2 (Presiding Judge Maeng Hyun-mu) recently sentenced Mr. A (58, male), who was indicted for violating the Railroad Safety Act, to a fine of 1.5 million won, the same as in the first trial.

Earlier, on the night of August 8, 2020, around 12:23 a.m., Mr. A was brought to trial on charges of verbally abusing and pulling the clothes of crew member Mr. B (53, male) on the SRT train from Mokpo to Suseo after Mr. B requested to see his ticket and demanded a surcharge for fare evasion.

In court, Mr. A admitted to these actions but argued that the cause was Mr. B’s fault. According to Article 10 of the Passenger Transport Terms and Conditions regarding surcharge collection standards, if a passenger boards without a ticket due to urgent circumstances but reports to the crew, only 150% of the fare needs to be paid. However, Mr. A claimed that Mr. B unlawfully demanded 200% of the fare.

Both the first and second trials found Mr. A guilty. The appellate court stated, "Even based on the defendant’s own claim, he was intoxicated and fell asleep in an empty seat, and Mr. B woke him up and discovered the fare evasion. In this case, it is difficult to consider it as 'reporting to the crew.'" The court explained, "According to the surcharge collection standards, surcharges can be imposed up to 30 times the base fare depending on various conditions and circumstances, and the crew has some discretion and room for interpretation in fact-finding."

Furthermore, the court criticized, "As an extreme example, the defendant testified in court that he had previously evaded fares. If this fact had been revealed on the spot, it could have been considered a 'repeated fare evasion,' subject to a surcharge of 10 times the fare under the surcharge collection standards."

The court also added, "Even if the defendant’s actions were intended to explain that only 150% surcharge should be collected, there was no urgent or unavoidable reason to assault the crew without following proper procedures."

Meanwhile, as Mr. A has appealed the rulings of the first and second trials, this case will be subject to the Supreme Court’s judgment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.