Press

Changwon District Court Masan Branch Chief Judge Jeon A-ram said, “There is no direct evidence from the scene of the damage, and the motive for the crime has not been proven.” A defendant in his 50s, who received a summary order of fines for damaging a co-worker's car, requested a formal trial and was acquitted. Changwon District Court Masan Branch Chief Judge Jeon A-ram found Mr. A, in his 50s, not guilty on October 25 on charges of property damage. Sentenced. In October 2021, Mr. A was indicted on charges of scratching the car of his colleague B, which was parked on the road in front of the company where he worked, with a Buddhist sharp tool, incurring repair costs worth 3 million won. The prosecution claimed guilt using CCTV footage as evidence showing Mr. A leaving the company's main gate on the day of the incident, entering the passenger side of the victim's vehicle and then coming back out. Mr. A completely denied the charges. At the time, he was returning to his car after submitting his resignation letter to the company, and he felt like someone was calling him from the company side of the wall, so he went inside for a moment to check. At the same time, Mr. A emphasized, "I usually walk to work and do not know the employees' vehicles, and on the day of the incident, I did not know that the vehicle in question belonged to Mr. B." Chief Judge Jeon A-ram of the Masan Branch of the Changwon District Court, who heard the case, said, "Even if you look at the enlarged photo of the CCTV video, you can see that the defendant was in the damaged vehicle. “I could only see the scene of him going close to the wall and coming back through the passenger side,” he said, and ruled in favor of Mr. A on the grounds that there was no direct evidence of damage to the vehicle. Chief Judge Jeon A-ram also ruled that there was insufficient evidence to reveal Mr. A’s motive for the crime. During the previous trial, Mr. B claimed that he had had several conflicts with Mr. A over work issues and had once heard threatening words from Mr. A, but Chief Judge Jeon A-ram said, “I heard threatening words. The ruling ruled, “Mr. B failed to clearly state the circumstances, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was aware of the victim’s vehicle.” Attorney Choi Yong-hwan of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who represented Mr. A, said, “A summary order of fine was initially issued to Mr. A, but he actively claimed innocence by requesting a formal trial.” Attorney Choi Yong-hwan continued, “In order to be punished for property damage, ‘intention’ must be clearly proven,” and “In this case, “In this case, there was not only direct evidence of vehicle damage, but also no clear motive for the crime, and the court appears to have taken this into consideration as well,” he explained. [View full article] - A man in his 50s who was summarily indicted on charges of damaging a colleague's car... acquitted after requesting a formal trial (link)

A middle school student who had been handed over to the prosecution on charges of property damage by removing a post from an apartment elevator was cleared of charges. The Suwon District Prosecutors' Office notified Ahn, who was transferred on charges of property damage, not to be charged on the 5th due to 'insufficient evidence'. Previously, on August 8, the Yongin East Police Station in Gyeonggi Province transferred Ahn, a middle school student living in an apartment in Giheung-gu, Yongin City, to the prosecution on charges of property damage. The police said at the time It was determined that Ms. Ahn's tearing down an unauthorized post on a mirror while returning home in the elevator on May 11 constituted damage to property. However, Ms. Ahn's father later complained through the Kookmin Shinmungo, saying, "It is unfair to apply the crime of property damage to an act of removing a post on a mirror that blocks the view without any other intention." When this fact became known, the Gyeonggi Southern Police Agency, a superior agency, followed the Yongin East Division's judgment. Recognizing that there were additional matters to consider, the police directly requested a supplementary investigation from the prosecution last September, received the case back, and continued the investigation. The head of the criminal division at Yongin Eastern Police Station, who was in charge of the case, said, "As a result of the supplementary investigation, we determined that there was no intention in removing the post," and added, "We notified the prosecution of the opinion of non-transfer on the 29th of last month." “I think the mechanical application of the law that causes inconvenience is unfair,” Kim Dae-eun, a lawyer at Daeryun Law Firm who represented the middle school student, told MBC, “When I heard that he was in a situation where he would become a criminal criminal just for taking down an illegal post in an elevator, I thought that the state’s exercise of judicial power operated mechanically. I am glad that I was able to resolve the injustice of the young student.” [View full article] MBC - [Exclusive] Prosecutors, no charges in 'Yongin Apartment leaflet incident'... "Insufficient evidence" (Shortcut) Newsis - Middle school girl sent to prosecution for tearing up elevator flyers, 'no charges' after supplementary investigation (Shortcut) Edaily - Middle school girl almost becomes 'ex-convict' after tearing up leaflets in elevator... What's the ending? (Shortcut) Namdo Ilbo - A middle school girl sent to the prosecution for tearing up an elevator flyer, ‘no charges found’ after supplementary investigation (Shortcut) Chosun Ilbo – A middle school girl sent to the prosecution for ‘damaging property’ after taking down an elevator post… Result: (Shortcut) Segye Ilbo - The middle school girl who took out the ‘apartment leaflet’ was sentenced to ‘no charges’ by the prosecution… Expert points out “mechanical actions of judicial institutions” (Shortcut) Dong-A Ilbo - “Property is damaged” after putting out leaflets saying “You can’t see in the mirror”… Middle school girl eventually found ‘not guilty’ (Shortcut) Lo Leader - Middle school girl sent for charges of damaging elevator flyers... Eventually, ‘Not guilty’ (Shortcut)

After the popular Netflix cooking competition program Black and White Chef aired, so-called 'scalping', in which restaurant reservation tickets for the cast members are sold at higher prices, has become prevalent. With more than 110,000 users flocking to make reservations for the restaurant that won the program's final winner, buying a reservation ticket has become a challenge. In fact, a post offering to purchase a reservation for two at the restaurant for 700,000 won appeared on various second-hand trading sites. However, the original selling price was only 100,000 won, raising the seriousness of illegal ticket scalping. Such illegal ticket trading is often found in our daily lives, and occurs in a variety of ways, from sports games to famous singer concerts. As of August this year, the number of scalping transactions reported to the professional sports scalping report center was 51,405, an increase of nearly eight times compared to 6,237 in 2020. The same goes for the popular music performance field, which is most affected by ticket scalping. According to statistics from the Korea Creative Content Agency's scalper monitoring center, the number of reports of scalpers in the performance field is increasing rapidly every year, from 359 in 2020, 785 in 2021, 4,224 in 2022, and 1,973 as of October last year. The reason scalpers can run rampant regardless of field is because the punishment was extremely weak. Selling ticket tickets was classified as a misdemeanor and was punishable by a fine of less than 200,000 won, detention, or fines. However, even this imposed fines only on on-site ticket scalping and failed to punish online ticket scalpers. As a result, it was pointed out that punishment was needed for all ticket scalping activities that took place both online and offline, and discussions on revising the law began in earnest. Afterwards, the illegal sales standards were supplemented, and the Performance Act and the National Sports Promotion Act were revised in March and September. What is noteworthy here is that the punishment has been greatly strengthened. In case of scalping, the seller will be subject to imprisonment for up to one year and a fine of up to 10 million won. The government did not stop there, but also announced plans to subdivide the punishment standards by size of profit and raise the level of punishment from the current level. As awareness of social problems related to ticket circulation is being strengthened, ticket transactions through illegal channels should be avoided as much as possible. As seen earlier, ticket scalping is a punishable matter regardless of whether it is online or offline, so it is best to reserve tickets through an official ticket office if possible. Nevertheless, if you are involved in a crime, it is advisable to consult with an expert to defend against the charges. [View full article] - ‘Illegal ticket scalping’ with increasing punishment, early response is important (link)

Man A was sent to the prosecution on charges of violating the stalking punishment law. Prosecutors said, "There was no threatening content in the note." The man who visited the house where his brothers lived several times and posted notes was handed over to the prosecution on charges of stalking, but was not indicted. The Ansan branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office announced on the 18th of last month that it had decided not to indict Mr. A, who is suspected of violating the law on the punishment of stalking crimes. Mr. A will be released in 2022. For about a year and a half since November, he was investigated for allegedly going to the residence where his brothers lived and pasting notes on their front door several times. During the investigation, Mr. A denied the charges, saying, "My eldest sister was suffering from mental difficulties, but she was virtually neglected by the other brothers, and because of that, she was often seen walking around the streets, so I only visited her to check on her well-being." However, the police reported that Mr. A had the intention of stalking and handed over the case to the prosecution. It was determined that there were no charges. After reviewing the note left by Mr. A, the main reason was that it was only a message expressing concern about his sister's well-being or informing him of the date and time of the next visit and did not contain any threatening content. The prosecution also added that it appears that there was an inheritance-related dispute between the brothers over the residence in question and that the victims also took into account the fact that they had not explicitly expressed their intention not to come to the suspect until the time of reporting. Lawyer Jeong Doo-yeon of Daeryun Law Firm (Limited), who acted as legal representative for Mr. “It must be clearly proven whether the act was done without ‘reason’ and whether it was to the extent of causing ‘fear’ to the victim,” he said. “In the case of Mr. A, he was not indicted because it was emphasized that he only left a note asking how he was doing and did not engage in any threatening behavior.” He added, “As the scope of application of the stalking punishment law has expanded, stalking charges are often applied to disputes that occur between family members or neighbors.” He added, “As the social perception related to stalking has become more stringent, if you are accused of it, you must be consulted by an expert.” “We need to get help,” he emphasized. [View full article] - A man posted several messages at his brother’s house… Prosecutor: “It’s not stalking” (link)

Most of the victims were ordinary people, and their entire assets were defrauded. Chief Judge Jeong-il Shin said, "He served as a cash collection agent essential to the completion of the crime... and severe punishment is inevitable." The victim's legal representative said, "The damage caused by the crime targeting the common people was extreme... This is a case that proves the intentionality of the fraud." The court sentenced a member of the voice phishing (telephone financial fraud) crime organization who was in charge of cash collection and stole about 120 million won in cash, and detained him in court. The first criminal division of the Pyeongtaek Branch of the Suwon District Court (Presiding Judge Shin Jeong-il) sentenced Mr. A, a member of a voice phishing organization, to two years and three months in prison on the 16th of last month on charges of violating the Special Act on Prevention of Damage from Telecommunications and Financial Fraud and Refund of Damages, and detained him in court. Mr. A acted as a cash collector for a voice phishing crime organization from around August to December 2023. He was charged with telecommunications financial fraud. Mr. A received tens of millions of won in cash from four people, including Mr. B, a victim who was deceived by phone lies from a voice phishing organization member, such as "This is Manager Kim Young-joo of the Financial Supervisory Service. An account in your name is involved in a crime," and "This is Prosecutor Kim Soo-gil of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. To prove that you are a victim of identity theft, I will send an employee, so deliver the cash." The total amount reached 118 million won. The Pyeongtaek branch of Suwon District Court, which heard this case, found Mr. A guilty and stated the reason for sentencing, saying, “Voice phishing is a planned and organized crime against an unspecified number of victims and continues to cause enormous damage,” and “Even if the defendant did not lead the crime, since he served as an essential cash collector for the completion of the crime, a correspondingly severe punishment is inevitable.” Attorney Lee Jong-hyun of Daeryun Law Firm (Lihan), who is the legal representative for victim B, said, "Perpetrators who stand trial for voice phishing fraud crimes are usually low-level gang members, and in these cases, they defend the charges by claiming that they had no criminal intent. However, the victims are in a situation where they are suffering so much damage due to the crime that they are unable to live their daily lives. The reality is that most of the victims are ordinary people, and it is not possible to properly recover from the damage after the crime. In this case, the victim was also defrauded of all his assets." Attorney Lee Jong-hyun continued, “In the case of the defendant in this case, he has been continuously communicating with other accomplices through SNS, and based on this, he emphasized that it was not a simple part-time job.” He added, “It appears that the court also judged that the defendant’s actions were intentional in fraud.” [View full article] - Voice phishing ‘cash collection plan’ that caused 120 million damages... ‘2 years and 3 months in prison’ · Court arrest (link)

Thanks to a ‘good dream’ she had, her husband won first place in the lottery and was asked about ownership. The expert offered consolation to the wife who sold the lucky dream at a low price, saying, “The winnings belong to the husband.” A story like this was reported on JTBC on the 4th. According to the story of this day, woman A has been leading an enviable married life with her husband B. Ms. A said that the most disappointing part is that her husband is too salty. Then one day, Ms. A had a lucky dream, and when she told this story to her husband, he said, “Sell yourself a dream.” At her husband's suggestion, Ms. A sold her dream for just a few tens of thousands of won, but her husband won first place in an instant lottery and received 1 billion won. The problem starts from this point. Mr. B hid the fact that he won the lottery. Mr. A claims that he kept it a secret not only from his parents but also from his family, and that he reduced his living expenses even more than usual and showed himself to be even more of a miser. When he told Mr. B, “Now that I have a lot of money, please buy me just one bag,” he flatly refused, saying, “This money is no good because it is retirement funds.” On the other hand, my husband was generous to his friends. Ms. A happened to meet her husband's friend while walking down the street, and the friend said she was grateful and said, "Thanks to you, I was able to put out the emergency fire." My husband lent 200 million won to a friend. Ms. A, who felt sad about this incident, ended up having a fight with her husband. Ms. A expressed her disappointment to her husband. However, the husband dismissed Ms. A’s complaint, saying, “There is no touching on the lottery winnings between married couples.” Ms. A expressed her resentment, saying, “Do I have no authority over the lottery winnings that my husband received?” Regarding this story, lawyer Kim Dong-jin of Daeryun Law Firm, who spoke to Segye Ilbo on the same day, said, “I think it would be good to look at the core in terms of causality.” He pointed out, “In our country’s sentiments, selling dreams is understandable, but there is no causal relationship with purchasing a lottery ticket.” He continued, “When looking at the contribution to winning the lottery, it is recognized if action or effort was involved in the result,” adding, “It cannot be said that you contributed simply by having a dream.” At the same time, she advised, "It is superstitious to connect dreams with winning the lottery. There is no causal relationship. The lottery winnings belong to my husband." Meanwhile, lottery winnings are not subject to property division during divorce. If you have a good dream, it would be better to buy a lottery ticket and hope to win first place rather than sell it. [View full article] - Wife sells ‘lucky dream’ at a low price, husband wins 1 billion won… Who owns the winnings? (Shortcut)

According to recently released data from the Ministry of Education, the number of reports of child abuse against teachers filed from September last year to June this year was 159. The investigative agency reportedly dismissed 111 cases, or about 70% of them, without prosecution. The number of cases in which teachers were indicted was 24, accounting for 15%. As the debate surrounding ‘child abuse’ continues in the educational field, a recent Supreme Court ruling is attracting attention. The circumstances of the case are as follows. Teacher A was teaching a class on the topic ‘What to do if you’re sick’ in an elementary school classroom in 2019. At the time, the class was conducted in a way that students formed groups to discuss, and the group representative presented related content. The group that Student B belonged to decided on a presenter through rock-paper-scissors, and in this process, Student B was selected as the presenter. However, Student B, who was dissatisfied with this, sulked and did not give the presentation, and did not participate in any other activities in class afterwards. Then it was lunch time, and Teacher A ordered Student B to move to the lunch room, but Student B did not follow this. In response, Teacher A approached Student B and said, “Hey, wake up,” and attempted to pull Student B up by grabbing his arm. However, Student B was steadfast. In the end, Teacher A called Student B's mother and explained, "I can't use my strength because I'm afraid the child will get stubborn and get hurt." With the mother's consent, Teacher A left Student B in the classroom and moved to the cafeteria. The original trial court ruled that Teacher A's lifting of Student B's arms constituted an act of abuse. The reason was that discipline through other educational means, such as conversation or non-physical sanctions, was not impossible. Meanwhile, the court fined Teacher A 1 million won and ordered him to complete 40 hours of child abuse treatment program. However, the Supreme Court's judgment was different. The original judgment was overturned and the case was sent back to the original court. The Supreme Court interpreted Teacher A's actions as part of education. Since the act of trying to raise the arms was done to encourage students to participate in essential educational activities, it should be viewed as a valid instruction. At the same time, the Supreme Court added that the defendant appears to have chosen an appropriate teaching method within the scope of his reasonable discretion as a teacher. Through this ruling, the Supreme Court made clear its position that ‘even if the teacher caused the student to feel some physical pain, if the act is within the scope of education, it cannot be considered abuse.’ This can be interpreted to mean that when judging a teacher's educational behavior, not only the Child Welfare Act but also related laws such as the Basic Education Act must be broadly considered. This ruling, which recognizes teachers' discretion, is expected to have a significant impact on future child abuse-related lawsuits filed in educational settings. [View full article] - Meaning of Supreme Court ruling: “Report of abuse for raising student’s arm... legitimate education” (link)

A man in his 50s who was indicted on charges of molesting a co-worker at a company dinner was found not guilty. The court's judgment was that "there is no evidence to support the victim's testimony." According to the legal community on the 4th, the Pyeongtaek branch of the Suwon District Court acquitted 50-year-old Mr. A, who was sent to trial on charges of forcible molestation on the 15th of last month. Mr. A forcibly assaulted Mr. B, a 52-year-old co-worker from the same company, at a karaoke bar in Pyeongtaek-si, Gyeonggi-do in January. He was charged with molestation. During the police investigation, Mr. B claimed that despite his clear intention to refuse, Mr. A tried to touch him by hugging him from behind. However, Mr. A denied the charges, saying he had never done anything to cause sexual disgust, and his colleagues at the company dinner also stated that they had never witnessed Mr. A's molestation. At the trial, Mr. A's legal representative said, "The victim's complaint is against objective facts, and there is nothing to acknowledge the defendant's intention to molest." Affidavits of attendees at the dinner party at the time, fact confirmation documents, etc. were submitted as evidence. The court also ruled, "According to the victim's statement, the defendant's molestation led to a serious situation such as the victim screaming, but it is very unusual for no one to have witnessed it," adding, "It is difficult to conclude that the defendant forcibly molested the victim by looking at the objective circumstances." Attorney Kang Eun-hye of Daeryun Law Firm, the legal representative in the case, said, "The charge of forcible molestation is against the will of the other party." “In particular, in cases where sexual assault is committed through assault or intimidation, it is difficult to collect evidence, so there are many cases where we have no choice but to rely on the victim’s statement,” he said. “The standards for establishing harassment have been relaxed and the scope of punishment has also expanded, so if you are unfairly accused of being a molester, you need systematic help from an expert from the beginning of the case.” [View full article] KBC Gwangju Broadcasting - Man in his 50s accused of 'molesting a fellow employee', court finds 'not guilty' (Shortcut) Segye Ilbo - The woman's consistent claims did not work... Man in his 50s found not guilty on charges of molesting a fellow employee (link)

A business agreement was signed to promote legal research and education, including providing students with practical experience and holding joint research and academic seminars. Incheon National University's Faculty of Law and Daeryun Law Firm (Liuhan) joined hands to foster talent. On October 31, at 2 p.m., the two institutions signed a business agreement in Room 502 of the University Headquarters of Incheon National University in the presence of Incheon National University Vice President for External Cooperation Noh Young-don, Dean of the Law Department Lee Chung-hoon, and Professor Jin Do-wang, and Daeryun Law Firm's Representative Attorney Kim Kuk-il, Chief General Counsel Lee Kwang-woo, and Lim Seong-won. In detail, Daeryun decided to provide Incheon National University Law School students with opportunities to gain practical experience and actively cooperate in participating in job fairs and internship programs. Next, the Incheon National University Law School and Daeryun decided to actively promote legal research and education through joint research, holding academic seminars, and invited lectures. They also decided to contribute to the development of the local community by providing legal advice and free legal services. Incheon National University Vice President for External Cooperation Young-don Noh, who attended the business agreement ceremony on this day, said, “I am sincerely grateful to Law Firm CEO Kuk-il Kim, who has stepped forward from afar to interact with and provide assistance to law students majoring in law.” He added, “We will strive to achieve a program that supports mutual practice through today’s agreement.” In response, CEO Kuk-il Kim of Daeryun Law Firm said, “Today is my first visit to Incheon University, and it was like an engineering school in the United States. “I am impressed by the calm and comfortable campus,” he said. “We will do our best to achieve a coexistence with the law firm of Incheon National University, where Daeryun Law Firm’s popularity and accessibility are continuously developing.” Choong-Hoon Lee, Dean of the Department of Law at Incheon National University, said, “We expect that the business agreement with Daeryun Law Firm will provide practical help in strengthening the major abilities and career planning of law school students,” and added, “We are actively working to ensure that the internship program is actively carried out starting from this winter vacation.” “I will step forward,” he said. [View full article] Professor's Newspaper - Incheon National University Law School and Daeryun Law Firm join hands in talent development and legal research (Shortcut) Kyungin Broadcasting - Incheon National University Law School and Daeryun Law Firm join hands in talent development and legal research (Shortcut)Citizen Ilbo - Incheon National University Law School and Daeryun Law Firm, together for talent development and legal research (Go here)Daily Today - Incheon National University Law School and Daeryun Law Firm join forces in talent development and legal research (Shortcut) Consumer Times - Incheon National University Law School and Daeryun Law Firm join hands for 'talent training and legal research' (Shortcut) Gyeonggi Maeil - Incheon National University Law School and Daeryun Law Firm join forces in talent development and legal research (Shortcut) Media Incheon Newspaper - Incheon National University Law School and Daeryun Law Firm join forces in talent development and legal research (Shortcut) Business Agreement (Shortcut)

“Children are unable to sleep due to loudspeaker noise that continues day and night.” Recently, as ‘nuisance protests’ have increased in front of the homes of high-ranking public officials and businessmen, including banners with provocative content, swearing, wearing mourning clothes and singing dirges, nearby residents are suffering. In the middle of this year, some union members in Cheonan, South Chungcheong Province held a demonstration in front of the home of the head of a company in Samseong-dong, Seoul, protesting against an increase in construction costs, Hyundai Transys. The union held a protest in front of the home of Hyundai Motor Group Chairman Chung Eui-sun. There were even demonstrations targeting empty houses in front of Samsung Electronics Chairman Lee Jae-yong's home. In various online communities, there are many posts posted by residents who have suffered damage from protests in front of their homes, complaining that "there is no help other than reporting the noise," "it's so annoying that it makes everyday life difficult," and "I'm afraid my children will hear swear words." In this way, residents criticize protests in residential areas for disrupting their peaceful lives and could be considered an "illegal act," while the protesters say that the protests are legitimate. They are fighting back, saying it is an exercise of ‘freedom of expression.’ Netizens are also giving mixed reactions to this. Some argued, “Assemblies in residential areas should be banned at the source,” “What on earth are you doing in front of your home?”, “Not in a residential area, but maybe in front of a factory?”, “Along with the freedom of assembly, all ordinary citizens have the right to live as human beings quietly and without being disturbed.” Also, “Freedom of expression must be protected,” “The assembly law is the sovereignty of the democratic movement,” and “I tried for 100 days in front of the headquarters, but no one would meet me. There was also a response supporting the rights of the protesters, saying, “It is a protest culture created by the corporate culture.” Professor Kwak added, "Company protests are spread across multiple responsibilities, but protests in front of people's homes are entirely the responsibility of the individual, so greater psychological pressure can be felt." Article 21, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and demonstration to all citizens, and under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (Assemblies and Demonstrations Act), protests are operated through a reporting system, not a permit system. However, Article 37, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates that this right may be restricted only when necessary to maintain public order and safety, allowing for some restrictions in cases where it may pose a threat to national safety or public order. In other words, it is difficult to ban the demonstration in front of one's home, but it is possible to limit the noise level and time zone. The Enforcement Decree of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, revised last August, further strengthened the noise standards in residential areas, etc., and established weekly equivalent noise standards. The maximum noise level was lowered to 60 dB, 50 dB at night, and 45 dB at night (midnight to 7 a.m.). The maximum noise level was lowered to 80 dB during the day, 70 dB at night, and 65 dB at night. According to standards such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 80 dB is the noise level of a passing subway, 65 dB is the level of conversation in a crowded cafe, 60dB is the noise level at which people are talking in an office. The Ministry of Environment in Korea sets a noise level of 65dB or less as the daytime noise standard for residential areas, and believes that exceeding this level may result in increased inconvenience to residents. Is there no way for residents to prevent protests in their residential areas? Law firm Daeryun Choi Hyeon-deok said, “There is virtually no way to completely block protests in residential areas. If residents want to receive compensation for damage caused by noise, they must file a civil lawsuit, and this is only possible when the standard decibel level set by the House and Demonstration Act is exceeded.” He added, “If 65 dB persists, it can be quite uncomfortable, so in the future, the decibel standard should be lowered further or in residential areas.” “I think we need a plan to ban the use of loudspeakers,” he emphasized. [View full article] - "If the head of a large company is your neighbor, do you have to endure noise pollution?" [All That Check] (Shortcut)