“I Needed the Bathroom”: Man Who Blocked Parking Garage for 40 Minutes Criminally Fined ₩1 Million
A 68-year-old man who blocked an officetel parking garage entrance with his Mercedes for forty minutes — after being denied entry due to unpaid maintenance fees — has been convicted of obstruction of business operations and criminally fined ₩1 million, despite claiming he was urgently ill. Here are the key points.
Facts
- On July 1, 2025, A drove his Mercedes to the parking garage of the officetel where he lived but was denied entry when the barrier failed to open — his vehicle registration had been cancelled due to unpaid maintenance fees.
- Angered, A stopped his car directly in front of the barrier and left it there from 6:26 PM to 7:04 PM — blocking the entrance for approximately forty minutes. Other vehicles were unable to enter or exit during that time.
- Police responded to a 112 call and ordered A to move the vehicle. He complied only after the police order.
- A received a summary fine order of ₩1 million for obstruction of business operations. He rejected it and requested a formal trial.
- At trial, A argued he had bladder cancer symptoms that made it impossible to hold his urine, and that he had simply gone to use his home bathroom while the car was stopped — not deliberately blocking the entrance.
Court Decision
- Incheon District Court convicted A and maintained the ₩1 million fine, rejecting his defense.
- The court found that A was fully aware his parked vehicle would obstruct traffic in and out of the garage and chose to leave it there regardless — satisfying the contingent intent required for obstruction of business.
- The court found the conduct poor in character given the motivation and circumstances, and noted that A had neither been forgiven by the victim nor reached a settlement.
Key Takeaways
- Deliberately or knowingly blocking a shared access point — even temporarily — in response to a dispute or frustration with building management constitutes obstruction of business operations under Korean criminal law.
- A medical urgency defense fails where the circumstances suggest the blockage was motivated by anger at the management company rather than by genuine incapacity to move the vehicle.
- Contingent intent — awareness that the blockage would occur combined with acceptance of that outcome — is sufficient for the offense. The defendant need not have specifically intended to cause obstruction as his primary goal.
- Requesting a formal trial after a summary fine order carries the risk of the original fine being maintained or increased — here it was maintained, producing no benefit for the defendant while consuming court resources.
Why This Matters
This case is a useful illustration of how Korean criminal law applies to access obstruction disputes in residential and commercial building settings — a scenario that arises more frequently than courts would prefer. The outcome confirms that using a vehicle to block shared infrastructure as a form of self-help protest against a building management decision is not a protected form of grievance expression — it is criminal conduct. For building residents and managers, the decision reinforces that disputes over access, maintenance fees, and vehicle registration should be resolved through legal channels, not by physically blocking shared facilities.
Article: https://ichannela.com/news/detail/000000552282.do
Leave a Reply