Suspended Sentence of 1 Year with 4 Months Imprisonment in Appeal
"No Repetition or Continuation" Defense Rejected
A man in his 50s who visited the upstairs neighbor's home, with whom he had conflicts over noise between floors, repeatedly left notes, rang the doorbell, and strongly knocked on the door, was convicted of stalking again in the appellate court following the first trial.
The Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 1 (Presiding Judge Shim Hyun-geun) announced on the 1st that Mr. A (52), who was charged with theft and violation of the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes, was sentenced to 4 months in prison with a 1-year probation. The court also ordered Mr. A to undergo probation and attend 40 hours of stalking crime recidivism prevention lectures.
Mr. A was brought to trial on charges of stealing a delivery box containing an 'Automatic Door Digital Smart Key' worth 168,000 KRW, which was left at the door of Ms. B's (27, female) upstairs apartment, where they had conflicts over noise between floors, after ringing the doorbell and waiting in May of last year. Earlier, in November 2021, he had left a note on Ms. B's door saying, "Why do you cause harm to others?" and in December of the same year, he visited Ms. B's home again, strongly knocking on the door and shouting for her to come out.
Investigations revealed that Mr. A and Ms. B had long-standing conflicts over noise between floors. Besides the incidents charged, Mr. A also engaged in behaviors such as loudly calling Ms. B's name or cursing in his own bathroom to make sure the upstairs neighbor could hear, and repeatedly leaving notes.
In the first trial, Mr. A argued, "It was an expression of dissatisfaction related to noise between floors, and the stalking acts described in the charges occurred only three times," adding, "There is no repetition or continuity, so the stalking charge does not apply." However, the first trial court found all of Mr. A's actions guilty and sentenced him to 6 months in prison with a 1-year probation.
Upon reviewing the case again, the appellate court judged that Mr. A's act of ringing Ms. B's doorbell and waiting in May last year, given the 1 year and 6 months interval from previous offenses, was insufficient to be recognized as a continuous and repetitive act. Accordingly, the court acquitted Mr. A of some charges and reduced the sentence compared to the first trial. Regarding the sentencing, the court explained, "We considered that Mr. A's family pledged to live with him going forward to prevent the recurrence of such incidents and petitioned for leniency."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
