Supreme Court: Blocking a Passenger Car from Moving Also Constitutes Damage... Excavator Driver Fined

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has upheld a fine against an excavator operator who placed obstacles such as rebar in front of and behind a parked passenger car, preventing it from moving for a certain period. The ruling states that even if no physical damage occurs to the vehicle itself, if its original function such as operation is temporarily disabled, it constitutes the crime of property damage.

On the 24th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice No Taeak) announced that it confirmed the lower court's ruling sentencing Mr. A to a fine of 500,000 won in the appeal trial for property damage charges.

Mr. A was prosecuted for placing rebar, concrete castings, and excavator parts in front of and behind a passenger car parked by Mr. B on a vacant lot in Nowon-gu, Seoul, around 1:30 PM on July 7, 2018, where he usually parked his excavator, preventing the car from moving for about 18 hours. At the time, Mr. A did not leave his contact information separately, and Mr. B tried to move the vehicle alone but failed, then called the police to try moving the obstacles together, but was unsuccessful, according to the investigation.

Article 366 of the current Criminal Act stipulates that "Anyone who damages, conceals, or otherwise impairs the utility of another person's property shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 7 million won."

The first trial acquitted Mr. A. The court at that time judged, "Mr. A's actions did not cause any obstruction to the shape, structure, or function of the passenger car itself," and "this does not fall under the 'other methods' mentioned in the crime of property damage."

On the other hand, the second trial found Mr. A guilty and sentenced him to a fine of 500,000 won. The second trial court pointed out, "Mr. B's passenger car was practically unable to be used for its original purpose of driving for about 18 hours," and "Mr. A's actions fall under the case of 'impairing utility by other methods' as defined in the crime of property damage." The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment and dismissed Mr. A's appeal.

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