South Korean court rules banging on ceiling, calling to complain considered stalking

A woman in her fifties has been fined for repeatedly banging on her ceiling with A backscratcher and contacting her upstairs neighbour over noise, with A South Korean court ruling that her actions amounted to stalking.The <A href="/organization/<A href="/location/chuncheon" class="entity-link entity-location" data-entity-id="195969" data-entity-type="location">ChuncheonA>-district-court" class="entity-link entity-organization" data-entity-id="195967" data-entity-type="organization"><A href="/location/chuncheon" class="entity-link entity-location" data-entity-id="195969" data-entity-type="location">ChuncheonA> District CourtA> fined the 55-year-old woman, identified only as A, 2 million won (US$1,400) for violating the <A href="/topic/act-on-punishment-of-crimes-of-stalking" class="entity-link entity-topic" data-entity-id="195968" data-entity-type="topic">Act on Punishment of Crimes of StalkingA>, according to legal sources on Saturday.The court also ordered her to complete 40 hours of A treatment programme for stalking offenders.A was accused of stalking her upstairs neighbour on nine occasions between March 17 and May 11 last year at A residential complex in <A href="/location/chuncheon" class="entity-link entity-location" data-entity-id="195969" data-entity-type="location">ChuncheonA>, <A href="/location/gangwon-province" class="entity-link entity-location" data-entity-id="195970" data-entity-type="location">Gangwon provinceA>.A South Korean court emblem. Photo: The Korea TimesHer actions included repeatedly striking the ceiling with A backscratcher and calling the upstairs flat through the building’s intercom system.According to the investigation, A had been asking the neighbour, A woman in her forties identified as B, to keep the noise down since January last year. When the problem remained unresolved, A repeatedly contacted B directly through the intercom to complain.B asked A not to contact her directly over the noise and instead raise any complaints through the management office.During the trial, A denied that her actions constituted stalking, arguing that they were within A socially acceptable range of conduct aimed at finding A solution to the noise problem and that she had no intention of stalking B.The court rejected her argument.“Considering the circumstances that led the defendant to complain, as well as the methods and frequency of her actions, they were objectively sufficient to cause anxiety or fear in the other person,” the judge said.The court said A’s conduct could not be regarded as having A legitimate reason or falling within the bounds of socially acceptable behaviour.Further Reading