"Missed Calls Are Also Stalking"…Why the First Trial's Not Guilty Verdict Was Overturned

Fine Imposed on 50s Man Who Contacted 20s Woman Met During Trip
Court: "The Act of Sending Itself Causes Anxiety and Fear"

A man in his 50s who repeatedly tried to contact a woman in her 20s, whom he met during a package tour, was punished for stalking. Previously, the first trial court judged that the ringing sound of the phone and missed call notifications alone, caused by the phone call attempts, were insufficient to establish stalking. However, the appellate court overturned this decision.

A ruling has been made that missed call notifications also constitute stalking behavior. The photo is unrelated to the article content. [Image source=Getty Images]

According to a Yonhap News report on the 21st, the Chuncheon District Court Criminal Division 2 (Chief Judge Lee Young-jin) overturned the original verdict that acquitted A (53), who was charged with violating the Stalking Punishment Act, and sentenced him to a fine of 2 million won. A was also ordered to complete 40 hours of a stalking treatment program.

A was prosecuted for making six phone calls and sending one text message over three days to B, a woman in her 20s whom he met during a package tour to Ulleungdo in November 2021. The first trial court acknowledged the acts themselves but found the evidence insufficient to convict. Regarding the five additional call attempts after the first call, the court cited Supreme Court precedents related to the Information and Communications Network Act, ruling that the 'ringing sound' cannot be considered a sound transmitted to the other party, and the 'missed call' notification is merely an additional service by the telecom company, not an act of delivering text or symbols.

However, the appellate court's judgment differed. The court first focused on the circumstances under which B received contact from A. B consistently testified that "A asked for my contact information at a meal, saying 'I never call first,' and mentioned that he had been involved in organized crime for a long time. Since I had to continue encountering A during the next schedule, I gave him my contact information." Also, during phone calls with B, A persistently questioned her about physical intimacy with her boyfriend. When B expressed refusal, A even asked, "Don't you understand the hidden meaning behind these questions?"

The court ultimately concluded that A caused B considerable anxiety and fear, considering that B refused A's calls and avoided him throughout the trip. This was a different judgment from the first trial court, which had found it difficult to see that A's remarks about B's physical intimacy with her boyfriend caused anxiety or fear beyond mere discomfort or unpleasantness.

The appellate court regarded not only the phone calls but also the ringing sounds, vibrations, and missed call notifications generated by the phone as acts of stalking.

Unlike the Information and Communications Network Act, which concerns acts that 'transmit' symbols, texts, or sounds through the information network, the Stalking Punishment Act defines stalking as acts that 'use' the information network to deliver texts, symbols, or sounds. According to this, A's actions constitute stalking.

The appellate court stated, "If the crime of stalking were interpreted to require the victim to answer the phone, it would lead to an absurd and unreasonable result where the crime is only established when the call is answered, even though the victim experiences anxiety or fear simply from the act of calling."