Criminal Trial for '1-Hour Unauthorized Parking'... Conflicting 1st and 2nd Instance Rulings, Supreme Court Decision [Seocho-dong Legal Story]

This is the story of a driver who was prosecuted criminally after illegally parking his car for about an hour in the parking lot of a villa he did not reside in, without any particular reason. On August 20, 2021, at 1:14 PM, Mr. A (30, male) parked his passenger car on the first floor of a five-story villa in Seocho-gu, Seoul. This villa was a pilotis-style building with an open first floor. Since he was not a resident of the villa, the manager who discovered this sent a text message asking him to move the car. Mr. A did not respond for about an hour. When he returned, he even argued with the manager.

The prosecution stated, "Taking advantage of the absence of the manager or residents nearby, he arbitrarily drove his vehicle into the parking space and trespassed into the building," and indicted Mr. A in February last year on charges of trespassing. According to Article 319, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Act, a person who trespasses into a building managed by another can be punished by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 5 million won. During the trial, Mr. A and his lawyer denied the charges, claiming "he only parked briefly and had no intent to trespass into the building."

The first trial found Mr. A guilty and sentenced him to a fine of 500,000 won. The first trial court stated, "The space where the defendant parked is objectively and clearly a place provided for the use of the building, and outsiders should not enter it recklessly due to its form and structure." Furthermore, "Considering that he parked for about an hour and did not respond to the manager's message due to personal reasons, it is judged that Mr. A had at least an indirect intent to trespass into the building." Mr. A did not accept the first trial verdict and appealed.

The second trial reversed the decision and acquitted him. On June, the second trial court said, "The space where Mr. A parked was adjacent to the road and open to the outside. There were no devices such as barriers to block external access, nor any signs prohibiting outsiders from entering," adding, "Considering that it did not take long for the defendant to park and then move the car upon the manager's request, it is difficult to see that the defendant's parking disturbed the actual peaceful state of the manager or residents. There is insufficient evidence to recognize that Mr. A trespassed into the building." This follows the Supreme Court plenary session precedent that whether an act constitutes 'trespassing' under the crime of residential intrusion should be judged not merely by whether it is against the resident's will but by whether it disturbs the actual peaceful state of the resident's dwelling.

This time, the prosecutor appealed but failed to change the result. Recently, about a year and a half after the indictment, Mr. A was acquitted by the Supreme Court. According to the legal community on the 15th, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) stated, "In light of the relevant legal principles and records, there is no error in the second trial court's interpretation of the law regarding 'trespassing' under the crime of trespassing into a building," and dismissed the prosecutor's appeal.