The Supreme Court confirmed a suspended prison sentence for a son who stayed in the house his father sold.
The Supreme Court's second division (Chief Justice Eom Sang-pil) stated on the 25th that it upheld the appellate court's ruling, which sentenced A to 10 months in prison, suspended for 2 years, in the case involving allegations of infringement on the usefulness of enforced real estate execution related to A's son, B.
A, his wife, son B, and daughter C reportedly lived together in a house owned by A for a while. Afterward, when the children went out of town, A sold the dwelling. However, conflicts began when the children returned to the house and refused to leave.
A filed a lawsuit against his daughter for the return of the dwelling and won in 2020. Subsequently, a court enforcement officer went to the house and carried out forced execution, such as removing his daughter's belongings. However, it was reported that on that day, his son unlawfully entered the house and occupied it for nearly a month, bringing in household items. In response, A filed a complaint against his son for alleged infringement on the usefulness of enforced real estate execution.
Both the first and second trials found the son guilty, sentencing him to 10 months in prison, suspended for 2 years. The court concluded that since the house was jointly occupied by the son and daughter, it was illegal for the court to enforce the execution of the dwelling only against the daughter. However, it stated that just because there were some undue aspects in the execution process, negating the entire effect of the execution is not permissible. The Supreme Court also deemed the lower court's judgment correct.