Child Causing Noise Between Floors Asked, "Why So Noisy?"... Supreme Court Rules as "Emotional Abuse"

Law "Emotional Abuse That Harms the Mental Health and Development of Child Victims"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that making threatening remarks to children living upstairs, with whom there had been disputes over noise between floors, constitutes "emotional abuse" that harms the mental health and development of children.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) confirmed the lower court's ruling on the 18th, which found Mr. A guilty of violating the Child Welfare Act (child abuse), sentencing him to six months in prison with a one-year probation, and ordering 80 hours of community service and 40 hours of lectures on preventing recurrence of child abuse.

Mr. A was prosecuted on charges of emotionally abusing the children of Mr. B, a resident living upstairs, during a complaint about noise between floors in the apartment elevator on April 10, 2020.

Mr. A pressed his face close to the face of Mr. B’s 4-year-old child and scolded, "Hey, why have you been so noisy lately? You run around a lot, don’t you?" When Mr. B tried to leave the elevator, Mr. A blocked the door and pushed Mr. B against the wall in front of his two children. During this, he also said harshly to the children, "You listen carefully, I’m talking to you now."

It was investigated that Mr. A had previously complained to Mr. B about the noise issue and acted this way when they met in the elevator on the day of the incident. Due to this incident, Mr. A was also fined 2 million won for assault causing injury against Mr. B, which was finalized by a summary order.

The trial focused on whether Mr. A’s actions constituted "emotional abuse that harms the mental health and development of children."

The first and second trials ruled, "The defendant’s actions are emotional abuse that harms the mental health and development of the child victims," and "The defendant could have recognized, at least implicitly, that the victims would suffer extreme emotional distress," sentencing him to six months in prison with a one-year probation.

The Supreme Court also agreed with the lower courts’ judgment.

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