"Harassing Acquaintances Instead of Victims"... The Increasingly Cunning 'Stalking'

Giving Subtle Fear Through KakaoTalk and SNS
Stalking Definition Is Narrow... Needs Subdivision According to Various Patterns

[Asia Economy Culture Young Intern Reporter] Stalking-related crimes are evolving in cunning ways to evade the law. Although the Stalking Punishment Act has been in effect for over a year, courts have been issuing rulings that undermine the legislative intent of the law to protect victims, sparking controversy.

According to the police and Korea Women's Hotline on the 1st, the number of stalking reports received by the police in the one year since the Stalking Punishment Act was enforced last October totaled 29,000 cases. This is about 1.5 times more than the 19,000 cases reported to the police in the three years before the law was enacted.

After the enforcement of the Stalking Punishment Act, social interest increased and public opinion calling for strict punishment spread. However, the methods of crime have evolved cunningly to evade the law. Instead of directly harassing the victim, offenders harass acquaintances or people around the victim or subtly instill fear through social networking services (SNS).

Among consultations received by the nonprofit organization Korea Women's Hotline, there was a case where an offender continuously contacted an acquaintance of the victim by searching for the acquaintance's business registration number on an internet portal site to find their mobile phone number, thereby harassing the acquaintance.

They also engage in 'indirect stalking' by posting frightening messages or photos on their KakaoTalk profile or SNS that only the victim can understand to threaten them. Another cunning stalking method is to repeatedly call the victim's workplace to check if they have arrived without directly contacting the victim.

This is due to the overly narrow definition of stalking stipulated when the Stalking Punishment Act was enacted last year. It fails to encompass the various evolving forms of stalking. Currently, the Stalking Punishment Act defines stalking mainly in five ways: ▲approaching, following, or blocking the victim's path ▲waiting or watching at the victim's residence, workplace, or school ▲using letters, phone calls, or information and communication networks to deliver sounds or words ▲delivering objects ▲damaging objects at or near the victim's residence.

Although it took over 20 years to enact the Stalking Punishment Act, the loopholes in the law and court judgments remain problematic. Recently in Incheon, a controversial ruling acquitted a stalking case based on a precedent from 17 years ago when the Stalking Punishment Act did not exist. Additionally, courts have ruled that even if the offender persistently called, if the other party did not answer, they cannot be punished.

Such court rulings that do not align with public sentiment are also reflected in sentencing. Only one out of six cases where offenders were prosecuted for violating the Stalking Punishment Act resulted in a prison sentence. An analysis of 95 court rulings on cases prosecuted for stalking law violations from October last year to June this year, obtained by Rep. Itanhee of the Democratic Party from the Supreme Court, showed that only 16 cases (16.8%) resulted in actual imprisonment.

Rep. Itanhee said, "The courts are issuing 'retrograde' rulings, accumulating decisions that diverge from public sentiment," adding, "Current court rulings fail to consider the various contexts of stalking behavior." She further stated, "It is necessary to enact aggravated punishment provisions reflecting the characteristics of stalking crimes or to subdivide the law according to various patterns."