最高法院110年度台上字第6191號刑事判決將刑法第150條聚眾施強暴脅迫罪的不當修法予以限縮解釋，適當地將該罪限縮在保護公眾安全，而非立法歷程中所期待的治安刑法模式，認為該罪包括聚集偶然鼓動、或因他事而聚集或是集團趨向強暴，行為人並未離去的情形，此見解獲得學理討論上的肯定。不過，在場助勢之人對於群眾內部中，所呈現強暴脅迫的情形是否需具有認識，學說則有不同的看法，進而影響該罪的不法內涵意義，更顯得該罪在修法後所產生的適用缺陷。最高法院採取「共同意思」作為描述行為人間的串連涵蓋用語，忽略個別行為人主觀認定的判斷，更可能產生認定過廣而危害集會自由與違法判決的副作用，應予以避免。此外對於是否危害公眾安全，所採取的「外溢作用」標準，雖在實務運用上有其功效，但除彰顯與個人法益連結的混淆思考外，更有抽象的社會心理集體惡化的錯誤想像，有再斟酌的必要。

In this case, the improper revision of “Offenses of Assembles the Masses for Acting Violence or Threats” was given a restrained interpretation. This crime is to protect public safety, not the public security criminal law model expected in the legislative process. The Supreme Court believes that the circumstances of this crime include occasional instigation of gatherings, gatherings due to other events, or the group tends to become violent, and the perpetrators have not left. Most of the theoretical discussions also adopt the view of affirming the judgment of this case. However, as to whether the participants need to understand the situation of violence among the masses, there were disagreements in academic discussions, which further affected the illegal connotation of this crime. The Supreme Court's use of “The intent to commit a crime jointly” as the term used to describe the concatenation of participants, which obviously ignores the subjective determination of individual participants. It is more likely to have side effects of overly broad determinations that endanger the freedom of assembly and illegal judgments and should be avoided. In addition, regarding whether it endangers public safety, the judgment of this case adopts the “spillover effect” standard. Although it has the meaning of simple operation in the judgment of various situations, but it will be confused with personal legal interests, and with the wrong imagination of social and psychological collective deterioration, which needs to be reconsidered.