Hello, this is Lawyer Choi Jong-ha from Cheongchul Law Firm.

Due to the characteristics of our country's residential environment, where many people live in apartments, there are quite a few who suffer from noise between floors. From a legal perspective, it is generally interpreted that noise levels of daily life are tolerated due to the nature of joint housing, but from the perspective of those who are affected, there are often cases that are hard to accept.

Depending on the type of noise between floors, there may be instances where it is punished under the Minor Offenses Act (Article 3 Paragraph 1 Item 21 of the Minor Offenses Act: "Any person who makes excessively loud noises with instruments, radios, televisions, phonographs, bells, loudspeakers, motors, etc., or talks loudly or sings to disturb neighbors"), but proving this is not only difficult, but most feel it is inadequate given that the result is a "fine of less than 100,000 won."

 This may be why, on the internet and other platforms, advice can easily be found suggesting that retaliation against noise between floors with 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' is the best method. Searching for 'noise between floors' on any search engine shows that the keyword 'retaliation' often appears in related searches, which reflects the social perception of revenge against noise between floors quite well.

However, when the most commonly mentioned form of retaliation against noise between floors involves "installing woofers" or repeatedly "hitting the ceiling with a long stick," this can be judged as stalking behavior subject to criminal punishment as defined by the Stalking Crime Punishment Act.

Let's look at a recent case where a dispute originating from noise between floors led to punishment. In this case, the court ruled that the defendant living below "hit the wall or ceiling multiple times with an unspecified tool without justifiable reasons and made a 'thudding' noise that reached the victim against their will, and from that time until around 03:45 on November 27, 2021...(omitted)...repeatedly conveyed sounds that caused anxiety or fear to the victim a total of 31 times." Based on these facts, the defendant was sentenced to 8 months in prison, with a 2-year probation, 120 hours of community service, and mandatory attendance at 40 hours of prevention lectures on recidivism for stalking crimes (Changwon District Court, September 7, 2022, ruling 2021GO3675). This sentence took into account that the defendant had engaged in retaliatory acts during the early morning hours over several months, had not reached an agreement, and that the defendant had a history of fines, but it's essential to remember that a sentence of imprisonment has been handed down for retaliation against noise between floors.

Both the prosecutor and the defendant appealed against the above ruling, and when the appeal was dismissed, they further appealed to the Supreme Court. In response, the Supreme Court stated, "Just because such acts occurred during disputes resulting from noise between neighbors does not immediately mean that they constitute 'stalking behavior' that generally provokes anxiety or fear without justifiable reasons. However, when examined in light of the legal principles and the lawfully adopted evidence supporting the original ruling, the defendant repeatedly made noises with tools or sound equipment, expressing dissatisfaction with noise between floors and other surrounding noises, starting from late night to early morning, which caused significant sound to reach the victim and surrounding neighbors, leading many of them to move away within months. Moreover, despite being asked by the police, who responded to a report made by a neighbor, to open the door, the defendant refused communication and entry, asking 'Do you have a warrant?', and even filed charges against a neighbor who attempted to initiate conversation for allegedly stalking. Considering the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the nature and circumstances of the specific acts, the demeanor of the defendant, and various circumstances before and after the acts, it cannot be considered a reasonable act with justifiable reasons within a socially accepted range aimed at confirming the cause of noise between floors or seeking solutions, and it is deemed sufficiently capable of inducing anxiety or fear in the other party. Furthermore, since the series of actions have been continuous or repeated, the judgment of the court that they constitute 'stalking crimes' is understandable, and there was no error in exceeding the limits of free judicial discretion or misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the establishment of the crime of violating the old Stalking Crime Punishment Act, which would have influenced the ruling." Thus, all appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court ruling December 14, 2023, 2023Do10313).

In the second case, the defendant shouted insults loudly at the upper floor from the balcony and visited the victim's house multiple times using the intercom to complain about noise between floors. In this case as well, the court considered the facts that "the defendant shouted insults at the victim loudly due to noise between floors and called the victim’s house multiple times through intercom against the victim's will" and judged that the nature of the crime could not be seen as light, that the victim had not forgiven the defendant, and that it was difficult to see the defendant as reflecting upon his actions. As a result, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 5 million won and required to complete 40 hours of a stalking treatment program (Seoul Eastern District Court, June 13, 2024, ruling 2023No1219).

People often say that only those who have experienced noise between floors know the pain of it. To avoid conflicts between neighbors spilling over to court, it is necessary to be considerate and cautious of each other.