Caregiver Builds 'Wall' of Belongings to Barricade Neighbor Out of Resentment... Supreme Court Rules It Is Unlawful Confinement

Blocked Shared Space in Multi-Family Residence with Household Items
First Trial: "Only Inconvenience" - Not Guilty
Second Trial: "Elderly Victim, Constitutes Confinement" - Guilty
Supreme Court: "No Misunderstanding of Legal Principles" - 300,000

The Supreme Court has recognized the crime of unlawful confinement in a case where a caregiver in her seventies, who had been in conflict with her neighbor living next door in a multi-family house, harbored resentment and piled up belongings in front of her neighbor's door, making it difficult for them to enter or exit. The court viewed this as an act that went beyond mere inconvenience and effectively blocked the victim's 'freedom to leave.'

According to the legal community on November 18, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Kwon Youngjun) upheld the lower court's ruling, which imposed a fine of 300,000 won on the caregiver in her seventies.

The caregiver and her neighbor, also in her seventies, lived next door to each other in a multi-family residence. The dispute began when the neighbor filed a complaint, alleging that the caregiver was storing items in the shared space. In retaliation, on April 19 of last year, the caregiver tightly stacked household items such as a desk, table, plywood, and flowerpots in the common area between the neighbor's front door and the shared main gate.

As a result, the caregiver was put on trial on charges of making it impossible or extremely difficult for her neighbor to open the only entrance door and exit through the shared main gate. The first and second trials reached different conclusions. The court of first instance ruled the caregiver not guilty, stating that "although access was inconvenient, it is difficult to say that leaving was impossible or extremely difficult." However, the appellate court found her guilty and imposed a fine of 300,000 won. The appellate court noted that "the neighbor is elderly, and the items were heavy and stacked to the height of a person, so escaping would have required taking on significant risk."

The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion. The Supreme Court stated, "The lower court did not misinterpret the law," and dismissed the appeal, saying, "The argument that the sentence is excessive and unfair does not constitute a valid reason for appeal."

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