Hello. I am attorney Lee Kyung-jun of Cheongchul Law Firm.

One of the most frequent questions in stalking cases is, “How many times must an act occur to constitute a stalking crime?” The mere fact that there has been one or two contacts or approaches does not automatically establish a stalking crime, but the line between non-criminal conduct and a stalking crime has been drawn differently by investigative agencies and courts depending on the case.

Recently, the Supreme Court issued a ruling presenting a relatively clear standard on this point: Supreme Court Decision dated April 16, 2026, Case No. 2026Do2108 (violation of the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes). In this article, I will summarize the facts of the case, the standard set forth by the Supreme Court, and how it can be utilized in actual cases.

1. Overview of the Case

The defendant in this case engaged in the following acts toward the victim on two occasions.

① From around 15:43 to 15:52 on March 31, 2024, the defendant followed the victim’s vehicle for approximately 10 minutes.

② From around 14:33 to 14:38 on June 11, 2024, the defendant photographed the victim using a mobile phone camera owned by him.

The first and second instance courts combined the two acts and held that stalking acts had been carried out repeatedly, finding the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes. However, the Supreme Court held that the lower court had misapplied the law and remanded the case.

2. Requirements for the Establishment of a Stalking Crime

Article 2(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes (스토킹범죄의처벌등에관한법률) defines a “stalking act,” and Article 2(2) of the same Act separately defines a “stalking crime.” In other words, the existence of a single stalking act does not, by itself, constitute a punishable stalking crime; only when such stalking acts are carried out “continuously or repeatedly” does the conduct become a stalking crime subject to criminal punishment.

Ultimately, the core of a stalking case lies in determining (i) whether a given act qualifies as a “stalking act,” and (ii) whether such acts can be evaluated as “continuous or repeated.”

3. The Supreme Court’s Standards for “Continuity” and “Repetition”

A. The Meaning of “Continuous”

The Supreme Court held that “continuous” means a case in which, even if a particular act occurred only once, it continued for a substantial period of time and may itself be evaluated as conduct giving rise to anxiety or fear in the other party. In other words, even where the act occurred only once, continuity can be recognized if the act was temporally prolonged.

B. The Meaning of “Repetitive”

The more important point is the interpretation of “repetitive.” The Supreme Court held that “repetitive” means a case in which a particular act occurred two or more times and the acts have a close relationship to one another in terms of (i) temporal proximity, (ii) locational connection, and (iii) unity and continuity of criminal intent, such that, taken as a whole, they may be evaluated as a series of repeated acts giving rise to anxiety or fear in the other party.

The Supreme Court further made clear that where the conduct cannot be so evaluated — that is, where it amounts only to brief, intermittent acts or merely several one-off, non-continuous, sporadic acts — although each act may, depending on its specific content and degree, be punishable as a separate offense, it cannot be punished as a violation of the said Act.

4. Why the Supreme Court Denied Repetition in This Case

The two acts in this case were carried out approximately two months and thirteen days apart, and their content was also different — one was vehicle pursuit, while the other was photographing with a mobile phone camera.

Considering these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that it was difficult to find a close relationship between the two acts in terms of temporal proximity, locational connection, or unity and continuity of criminal intent, and accordingly that the acts could not be evaluated as a series of repeated acts. As a result, the Court concluded that the conduct amounted to merely two sporadic acts and could not be evaluated as a stalking crime, and remanded the original judgment to the contrary.

5. Practical Significance of the Ruling

Until now, there has been a not-uncommon, schematic understanding in practice that “two or more times equals repetition.” In particular, at the investigative stage, it has frequently happened that suspects have been booked for stalking crimes based purely on the formal number of acts. However, this Supreme Court ruling is significant in that it makes clear that “repetition” is recognized only where there is temporal, locational, and psychological connection between the acts, not merely on the basis of frequency.

This is a critical point for defense practice as well. Even if there have been two acts, where (i) the time interval between the acts is substantial, (ii) the location or method of the acts differs entirely, or (iii) it is difficult to view the two acts as part of a series of acts arising from the same intent, it has now become possible to actively contest whether a stalking crime has been established.

Conversely, it should also be noted that where the interval between two acts is short, the locations are the same, and they are evaluated as having arisen from the same intent, even a small number of acts on its face may be found to constitute repetition and thus increase the likelihood of being punished as a stalking crime.

6. Matters That Must Be Confirmed in Stalking Cases

When advising clients in stalking cases, the first thing I confirm is organizing the time intervals, locations, and methods of the alleged acts. Simply stating “I contacted them several times” or “We ran into each other a few times” is not sufficient.

In particular, in light of the standard set by the Supreme Court ruling above, it is necessary to organize, on the basis of objective materials: (i) the date, location, and method of each act; (ii) the interval between the acts; (iii) the motive and circumstances of the acts; and (iv) whether and when the victim expressed a refusal. On that basis, it is desirable to examine whether the conduct can be evaluated as a “series of repeated acts,” and to design the direction of statements and defense arguments accordingly.

Furthermore, where emergency police measures or court interim measures have already been imposed, one should not conclude that “a stalking crime has been established” merely because two acts have occurred. Instead, the relationship between the two acts should be carefully examined to confirm whether there is room to dispute the charges.

7. Closing

This Supreme Court ruling places a certain limit on the schematic understanding that “stalking is punishable upon two acts,” and is a ruling that may bring meaningful change to defense practice in stalking cases. However, it should not be interpreted to mean that “two acts will not be punished”; the key point is that the outcome may differ depending on how the temporal and locational connection between the acts and the unity and continuity of intent are evaluated.

Stalking cases are an area in which, even from the stage of emergency police measures or interim court measures immediately after a report, the matter is highly likely to develop into a criminal case, and once a case proceeds in earnest, the facts regarding frequency and form begin to harden. Therefore, if you have been reported for stalking, it is most important to consult with a criminal defense attorney as early as possible, examine the case precisely in light of the standard set by the Supreme Court ruling above, and set the direction of response accordingly.