A Man in His 40s Who Contacted 57 Times After Being Documented in a Comment Fight... Stalking Ruled 'Not Guilty'

Court Rules: "Wrong, But Not Enough to Be Considered a Crime"

A man in his 40s who contacted an online community adversary more than 50 times day and night after a heated argument in the comments was acquitted of stalking charges in court.

According to Yonhap News, on the 19th, Ulsan District Court Criminal Division 2 Judge Hwang Hyung-joo acquitted Mr. A, who was tried for violating the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes.

In August 2023, Mr. A contacted his 30s adversary, Mr. B, whom he had argued with on an online mom cafe, 57 times over a week via phone calls, text messages, and online comments, leading to a stalking report.

Initially, Mr. A and Mr. B had a dispute on the online mom cafe over a social issue. When Mr. A posted that "the superintendent of education is the problem" regarding a special teacher case involving emotional abuse of a famous webtoon artist's child, Mr. B responded with rebuttal comments, escalating the argument.

During the exchange of comments and replies, Mr. A used informal speech and profanity, prompting Mr. B to say "your level is low" and threaten to 'bakje' (capture, save, and publicly expose online to shame) the comments on his personal blog. Subsequently, Mr. B publicly posted Mr. A’s initial post and the comments exchanged between them on his blog.

Upon seeing this, Mr. A, fearing criticism from an unspecified number of people, repeatedly contacted Mr. B with the intent of asking him to take down the post. After receiving Mr. A’s messages, Mr. B expressed refusal, saying he was scared of late-night calls, but Mr. A continued to contact him, leading Mr. B to report him for stalking.

The court ruled that while Mr. A’s continued contact despite Mr. B’s wishes was wrong, it did not constitute a crime.

The court explained, "Most of the messages Mr. A sent to Mr. B were protests, with no threatening content." It also added, "Mr. B’s contact information was publicly available on the blog, making it easy for Mr. A to reach him." The court further stated, "Although Mr. A’s use of insults online towards Mr. B is blameworthy, it is insufficient to be considered a criminal offense warranting punishment."