Moved already... Lower-floor man came to demand explanation for noise between floors

Sentenced to 1 Year in Prison for Stalking Charges
"Difficult to Consider as Justifiable Reason"

A man in his 40s who visited the home of a former female neighbor?who had moved due to inter-floor noise disputes?after 1 year and 6 months to "hear an explanation" was ultimately sentenced to prison for stalking.

According to Yonhap News on the 2nd, the Criminal Division 2 of Chuncheon District Court (Presiding Judge Lee Young-jin) announced that it sentenced A (45), who was indicted for violating the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes, to one year in prison, the same as the original sentence, and ordered him to complete 40 hours of a stalking treatment program.

In late October and early November 2021, A visited the playground in the apartment complex where B (48, female), who had previously been in conflict with him over inter-floor noise issues, had moved to, and waited for B twice. He also approached B’s child and said, "Call your mom and dad."

Chuncheon District Court
Photo by Yonhap News

B, who lived in the apartment above A, had moved to another apartment in April 2020 after feeling extreme fear because A repeatedly visited at all hours, including early morning, knocking loudly on the door to complain about the noise between floors.

A, who was indicted without detention, claimed innocence in the first trial court, stating, "My actions were to hear an explanation about the past inter-floor noise." However, the Wonju Branch of Chuncheon District Court, which handled the first trial, sentenced A to one year in prison and detained him in court, stating, "It is difficult to consider the defendant’s motive to visit the new residence where the neighbor moved due to fear of noise complaints and to hear an explanation about the inter-floor noise as a justifiable reason."

A also claimed innocence in the appeal trial. However, the appellate court, like the first trial court, judged that A’s actions were unjustified. Furthermore, the appellate court rejected A’s claim that the on-the-spot arrest was illegal, citing that the victims had already reported to 112 six times, A continuously followed B’s child, and when the police asked for personal information and circumstances, B said she could not disclose it unless A was absent. The court also explained the sentencing by stating, "There is no reason to consider the original sentence too light or too heavy."

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