Supreme Court's 'Repetitive Act' Standard for Stalking Fuels Debate

A Supreme Court ruling has opened the door for actions like tailing someone and filming them with a mobile phone to be excluded from punishment under stalking laws. This has sparked controversy over the 'repetitive act' standard for stalking offenses.

The Supreme Court's First Division remanded the case of Mr. A, who was indicted for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Stalking Crimes, for retrial. Mr. A was accused of following the victim, Ms. B, in her vehicle for about 3 km and 10 minutes, and then about two months later, discovering Ms. B's vehicle and filming it for about 6 minutes. The lower court had previously ruled that these actions constituted stalking crimes, as they caused Ms. B anxiety and fear.

The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. A's actions did not constitute 'persistent' or 'repetitive' acts as defined by the Stalking Punishment Act. The Supreme Court viewed Mr. A's first act as a single incident lasting about 10 minutes, and the second act as a single incident lasting about 6 minutes. Considering the time gap of approximately two months between the two acts and the fact that he appeared to have encountered them by chance, the court ruled that these acts constituted two instances of isolated or non-continuous, single actions.

In response to this ruling, legal experts have argued that the interpretation of 'repetitiveness' should be broadened, taking into account the nature of stalking crimes. Lawyer Kim argued that stalking crimes should be judged primarily on whether they caused anxiety and fear against the victim's will, and that the progression of Mr. A's actions from tailing to filming should not overlook the characteristic of stalking crimes to gradually escalate into more serious offenses. He added that it is important for courts to interpret repetitiveness broadly to preemptively block criminal activity.