A woman in her 50s, who attached a noise warning stating, 'I think I know why there's a knife attack in the apartment,' was fined in the second trial.
According to the legal community on the 19th, the 8-1 Division of the Criminal Appellate Court of the Seoul Central District Court (Chief Judge Cha Seung-hwan, Judges Choi Hae-il, Choi Jin-sook) imposed a fine of 800,000 won on individual A, who was indicted on charges of intimidation, on the 11th.
Individual A was indicted for attaching threatening noise warning signs at the entrances of all floors of the same line apartment and the elevator in November 2021. The warning signs read, 'Tonight, I feel like I really know why there are knife attacks due to noise,' and 'I don't want to suspect or hate my neighbors.'
Individual A was also charged with leaving two notes at the front door of the upstairs house between June and December 2023, stating, 'The noise and violence caused by noise disputes do not seem like someone else's problem,' and 'Since we are both home all day, let's be careful before our heads get broken.'
The first trial found individual A not guilty regarding the warning signs attached in November 2021, while recognizing the other charges as guilty and imposing a fine of 700,000 won. However, the second trial regarded all charges as guilty and imposed a fine of 800,000 won on individual A.
The court noted, 'Historically, our society has experienced frequent violent incidents, including murders due to noise disturbances, making it a social issue,' adding that the statement, 'I think I know why there's a knife attack,' inherently sympathizes with and aligns with perpetrators of violent crimes. It is reasonable to interpret that it implies the potential for violent behavior akin to knife attacks when desires are not fulfilled.
Furthermore, the court stated, 'Considering the social context of noise disturbances and the violent crimes they cause, the location of the posting, and the specific extent to which the recipient can infer from the content of the writing, it cannot simply be regarded as a mere warning.' It pointed out that the defendant had caused sufficient harm to instill fear among victims and families raising young children on the same line.