Is "Unauthorized Parking for 1 Hour in Someone Else's Villa" Considered Trespassing? Acquitted in Second Trial

A man who was fined in the first trial for illegally parking for one hour in the parking lot of a piloti-structured villa was acquitted in the appellate trial.

According to the legal community on the 13th, the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Appeal Division 2 (Presiding Judge Kang Hee-seok) recently acquitted Mr. A (30, male), who was indicted for trespassing on a building, stating, "There is insufficient evidence to recognize that the defendant 'trespassed' on the building." The first trial's guilty verdict with a fine of 500,000 won was overturned to not guilty in the second trial.

The court stated, "The piloti space on the first floor of the building where the defendant parked was adjacent to the road and open to the outside. There were no devices such as barriers to block external entry, nor any notices prohibiting outsiders from entering." It added, "Considering that it did not take a long time from parking the vehicle to removing it upon the manager's request, it is difficult to see that the defendant's parking infringed upon the actual peaceful state of the building manager or residents."

This follows last year's Supreme Court plenary session precedent, which ruled that whether an act constitutes 'trespassing' under the crime of residential intrusion should be judged not simply by whether it goes against the resident's will, but whether it disrupts the actual peaceful state.

Earlier, Mr. A was brought to trial for parking his car in a gap where the manager Mr. B and residents were not visible in the piloti-structured villa's first-floor parking lot in Seocho-gu, Seoul, at 1:14 p.m. on August 20, 2021.

The villa where Mr. A parked did not have a separate parking barrier. Mr. A received a text message from Mr. B requesting him to move the car but did not respond for about an hour, and later, both parties were investigated to have had a dispute over the parking issue.

In court, Mr. A and his lawyer denied the charges, arguing that he only parked briefly and had no intent to trespass on the building.

The first trial found Mr. A guilty and imposed a fine. The first trial court stated, "The space where the defendant parked is provided for the use of the building due to its form and structure," and "It appears objectively clear that it is a space where outsiders should not enter recklessly."

It further pointed out, "Considering that he parked for about an hour and received text messages from Mr. B requesting the vehicle to be moved but did not respond due to personal reasons, it seems that the defendant had at least indirect intent to trespass on the building."

Mr. A appealed the first trial verdict and was acquitted in the second trial.

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