Home > National > Social Affairs

Top court upholds fine for man who blocked in neighbor with household items

Published: 18 Nov. 2025, 22:19

The Supreme Court flag is seen in front of the court building in Seocho District, southern Seoul on Oct. 20. [YONHAP]

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling fining a man for blocking a neighbor's front door with household items such as a table and bookcase because the neighbor had complained about personal items piling up in a shared space.

The Supreme Court recently finalized a 300,000 won ($204) fine for the man, who was convicted of unlawful confinement.

The man was indicted for stacking items including a bookcase, table and flowerpots between the front door and shared gate of a neighboring household in a multifamily building in April last year.

His actions made it nearly impossible for his neighbor, an older woman, to enter or exit their residence.

The man is said to have committed the act in retaliation after the neighbor filed a complaint stating that items placed by the man in shared areas obstructed passageways.

The neighbor testified that the stacked items reached eye level, forcing her to climb over the flowerpots to leave home or return by stepping on a shoe cabinet. She also said she fell during one such attempt.

A hallway in an apartment is seen in this photo unrelated to the story [YONHAP]

The district court found the man not guilty, stating that although the objects made it “somewhat difficult” for the neighbor to exit their home, it had not been proven that they made it “impossible or extremely difficult” for the neighbor to leave the building altogether, noting that she had still managed to leave and return.

The appellate court, however, reversed the decision, emphasizing that the neighbor was an older adult and that stepping over the obstructing items posed a significant physical risk. The court ruled that the man had at least indirect intent to confine the victim and found him guilty.

Under Supreme Court precedent, the crime of unlawful confinement may apply not only when a person is physically or tangibly restrained, but also when psychological or intangible barriers prevent them from leaving a space. It is not necessary for the victim’s freedom of movement to be completely blocked.

The man appealed the conviction, but the Supreme Court rejected his claim, concluding that there was no error in the appellate court’s ruling.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
BY KIM JI-HYE [[email protected]]