[The Police File] Stalking Punishment Act: Different Verdicts Depending on the Judge

A memorial procession of citizens continued at the women's restroom of Sindang Station on Seoul Subway Line 2, where a woman in her 20s working as a station attendant was killed last September after stalking. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

#1. Mr. A was indicted earlier this year on charges of stalking his ex-boyfriend by making 51 phone calls over four days and visiting his home twice. On one day, he made as many as 39 calls. The Incheon District Court recently ruled that although he continuously called, the calls were not answered and only the phone rang, so he could not be punished under the "Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes" (Stalking Punishment Act). The court interpreted that "even if a 'missed call' is displayed, it is merely a feature of the mobile phone itself," and "the ringing sound on the recipient's phone is not a sound transmitted through the information and communication network, so it does not violate the law."

#2. Last December, Mr. B called the victim 11 times late at night using his mobile phone, hung up without saying anything. He mainly used the ‘caller ID restriction’ feature, which hides his phone number from the recipient, and also attempted video calls. In June, the Gwangju District Court ordered Mr. B, who was indicted on stalking charges, to pay a fine of 10 million won and complete 40 hours of treatment lectures. The court stated, "The ‘sound’ stipulated in the Stalking Punishment Act refers to all sounds and ringing that reach the recipient via telephone or information and communication networks."

Although the offenders’ charges in both cases were similar, the courts’ judgments differed, resulting in guilty and not guilty verdicts. Article 3 of the current Stalking Punishment Act defines stalking as "acts of causing objects, writings, words, codes, sounds, pictures, videos, or images to ‘reach’ through mail, telephone, fax, or information and communication networks." The courts differed in their interpretation of what constitutes ‘something delivered’ under the law. From the victim’s perspective, acts clearly recognized as stalking often are not legally defined as crimes.

The Stalking Punishment Act has been in effect for just over a year. Although it barely passed the National Assembly last October, 22 years after the related law was first proposed in 1999, the law still falls short in preventing stalking and protecting victims’ safety. The Seoul Sindang Station stalking murder case in September is a representative example. The suspect, Jeon Joo-hwan, persistently demanded a settlement after the female station worker victim filed a stalking complaint against him, and when rejected, he ultimately murdered her. The ‘non-prosecution upon victim’s withdrawal of complaint’ clause, which prevents prosecution without the victim’s desire for punishment, exacerbated the harm.

Following the Sindang Station case, the Ministry of Justice began revising the Stalking Punishment Act, and related ministries and the National Assembly hurriedly proposed measures to prevent recurrence. The problematic ‘non-prosecution upon victim’s withdrawal of complaint’ clause was removed, and new provisions for punishing online stalking such as ‘humiliation of acquaintances’ were introduced. The types of provisional measures, such as restraining orders or detention, were expanded to include ‘attachment of electronic monitoring devices (electronic anklets).’ However, despite the enforcement of the Stalking Punishment Act, crimes continue to be repeated and outcomes vary depending on the judge. The law must be thoroughly supplemented to ensure effectiveness. Courts should also actively exercise their punitive authority rather than focusing solely on technical legal interpretations to prevent stalking crimes. How long will we continue to repeat the mistake of confirming legal loopholes through victims’ sacrifices?