Accused of Kicking Parked Apartment Car... "Joint Exercise" Not Guilty

Bumper and Door Repair Cost Reached 5 Million Won
Court: "Only Foot Raised and Lowered on CCTV"
"Vehicle May Have Been Previously Damaged"

A man in his 60s who was indicted for kicking a neighbor's car in the underground parking lot of an apartment complex was fined in the first trial but was acquitted in the appellate trial.

The Criminal Division 1 of Chuncheon District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Cheong-mi) announced on the 12th that it overturned the original ruling that sentenced A (66) to a fine of 2.5 million won for property damage and acquitted him.

Mr. A, who was accused of damaging a neighbor's vehicle by kicking it, was sentenced to a fine in the first trial but was acquitted in the appeal trial.
[Photo by Asia Economy]

The Criminal Act stipulates that anyone who damages or conceals another person's property, documents, or electronic records, or otherwise impairs their utility by special media records, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 7 million won.

In December 2020, A was brought to trial on charges of damaging B (35)'s car, including the front bumper and the lower part of the driver's door, by repeatedly kicking it with his foot in the underground parking lot of an apartment in Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon Province, causing repair costs of about 5 million won.

A completely denied the charges. He claimed innocence, saying, "I never even touched the victim's car with a fingertip. I only exercised my joints by bending and stretching my legs next to the car while smoking a cigarette."

The first trial court reviewed the parking lot's closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage and found that it was not clear that A was damaging the car. However, considering the victim's testimony and the video, the court judged that it was hard to accept the claim that A stayed in the narrow space between his own car and B's car for more than a minute, bending his waist and knees as exercise.

Furthermore, since there was no other external force that could have damaged B's car during the approximately three days it was parked, the court sentenced A to a fine.

However, the appellate court acquitted him. It judged that the prosecution's facts were not sufficiently proven in relation to A's claims of factual error and legal misunderstanding.

The appellate court stated, "A's actions captured on the CCTV footage only show him lifting and lowering his foot," and added, "It is questionable whether such actions could cause scratches or dents on a vehicle made of metal." It also ruled, "There is no evidence to infer that the defendant carried or used any tools that could damage the car's surface."

Moreover, "No significant impact was detected on the black box during the suspected time of the crime, and the possibility that the vehicle was already damaged beforehand cannot be excluded," the court added.

The court explained the sentencing rationale, saying, "Considering that the CCTV was clearly visible at the front, there is no special circumstance or reason to risk criminal punishment and compensation for damages due to detection of the crime."

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