70s Man Acquitted for Approaching 40-Year-Old Woman Two Days in a Row... Court: "Stalking Punishment Requires Continuity and Repetition"

A court ruling has determined that a man in his 70s who approached women for meetings over two consecutive days or filmed them with his cellphone cannot be punished under the Stalking Punishment Act.

Although each act may individually constitute stalking behavior, the ruling emphasizes that to punish stalking as a crime, it must be proven that the stalking behavior was continuous or repeated.

Seoul Central District Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

According to the legal community on the 30th, Judge Park Byung-gon of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 5 acquitted A (74), who was indicted for violating the Stalking Punishment Act, stating, "There is no proof of the crime alleged in the indictment."

The court explained, "While each act may be considered stalking behavior that approaches the victim against their will without justifiable reason, it does not meet the requirement of being 'continuous or repeated,' and therefore cannot be regarded as a stalking crime."

A was accused of approaching victim B (40) at a bus stop on May 2 last year, bumping her elbow and saying, "Let's have coffee," and the next day, approaching B again at the same location and filming her four times with his cellphone.

The prosecution viewed A's actions as stalking behavior that caused anxiety and fear to B continuously or repeatedly against her will and filed a summary indictment with a fine of 3 million won.

A appealed this and requested a formal trial, where he was acquitted.

The court judged that A's actions, described as stalking crimes in the indictment, involved two approaches with a one-day interval, which alone is difficult to consider as a series of continuous or repeated acts according to Supreme Court precedents.

Article 2 (Definitions) Clause 1 of the Stalking Punishment Act defines stalking behavior as "causing anxiety or fear to the other party by performing certain acts without justifiable reason against the other party's will," and enumerates various types such as ▲approaching, following, or blocking the path ▲waiting or watching near the residence, workplace, school, or other places where the other party usually lives ▲sending objects, writings, words, codes, sounds, pictures, videos, or images via mail, phone, fax, or information and communication networks.

Clause 2 of the same article defines stalking crimes as "continuously or repeatedly committing stalking behavior."

Article 18 (Stalking Crimes) Clause 1 of the same law stipulates that "a person who commits a stalking crime shall be punished by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to 30 million won," and only punishes stalking crimes that are continuous or repeated acts, not individual stalking acts.

Meanwhile, the prosecution included in the indictment that A had contacted B before the incident. It stated that A first met B in mid-March last year, learned her contact information, and sent KakaoTalk messages 11 times until mid-April.

At that time, B sent a clear refusal message saying, "This kind of contact is very uncomfortable. I hope you stop."

However, the court ruled that since the prosecution did not specify these details as "specific criminal facts" in the indictment, they were not subject to judgment.

The court stated, "The prosecution only generally mentioned in the indictment that the defendant sent KakaoTalk messages to the victim without specifying the details. This is merely to explain that the subsequent acts (stalking) were against the victim's will and cannot be considered specific criminal facts."