Sentenced to Prison for Stalking Again in His 20s After Two Previous Imprisonments

From March 2021, 2 Years of Stalking
500 Instances of Sexual and Threatening Messages

A man in his 20s who stalked a woman and served two prison terms was sentenced to prison again for stalking the same victim starting the day after his release.

According to the legal community on the 30th, on the 19th, Judge Lee Jong-min of the Criminal Division 3 at the Seoul Central District Court sentenced A (29), who was indicted in custody for violating the Stalking Punishment Act and the Information and Communications Network Act, to two years in prison and ordered him to complete 200 hours of a stalking treatment program.

Stalking [Photo by Yonhap News]

A met the victim B through prostitution in March 2021 and sent over 500 messages causing sexual shame and disgust to B for more than two years until this year. He was detained at Seoul Detention Center from May to September of the same year. Upon release, A immediately sent multiple threatening messages to B demanding a refund of a settlement money, resulting in his re-incarceration within two months and a sentence of one year and two months in prison last August. Although A was released in May this year after serving his full term, he did not stop stalking thereafter.

Starting with an Instagram message sent to B at dawn the day after his release saying, "I am really disappointed. But I hope you are happy," A sent a total of 536 messages and attempted calls over about 20 days through Instagram, text messages, KakaoTalk, and voice calls, sending texts and photos.

The court stated, "The defendant committed the crime again starting the day after his full-term release, showing extremely bad criminal nature and heavy culpability," and criticized, "It is clear that the victim, who has already suffered multiple harms, is experiencing significant mental distress and desires punishment." Regarding A's claim of diminished responsibility due to mental disorders such as anxiety disorder that impaired his ability to control his actions, the court rejected it, saying, "Since similar crimes have been repeated, such a claim is no longer favorable as a mitigating circumstance and may even be considered an unfavorable factor."