Hello, this is Cheongchul Law Firm.

Can a single “how have you been” text to an ex-partner lead to a stalking report? Conversely, if you are anxious about contact that continues after a breakup, you may wonder at what point the law steps in. Korea’s Act on Punishment of Stalking Crimes (the “Stalking Punishment Act”) makes persistence and repetition, not any single act in isolation, the decisive element of the offense. The Supreme Court of Korea recently spelled out that standard.

[Contents]

1. One text or one call does not automatically amount to a stalking crime

2. The seven statutory categories of “stalking conduct”

3. What “persistent or repeated” means – Supreme Court 2026Do2108

4. Contact after a refusal, and waiting outside someone’s home

5. Penalties, restraining measures and provisional measures

6. If you have been reported, or if you are the victim

1. One text or one call does not automatically amount to a stalking crime

The structure of the statute matters. Article 2(1) defines what counts as stalking conduct, while Article 2(2) defines a stalking crime as carrying out that conduct persistently or repeatedly.

So conduct that formally fits one of the statutory categories is not punishable on its own. Sending an ex-partner a single message, or placing a single call, will ordinarily fall short of the persistence and repetition element.

The risk begins with what follows. Messaging again the next day after no reply, or moving to another number or a social media account after being blocked, changes the analysis entirely. A single contact and a continuing course of contact are treated very differently under Korean law.

2. The seven statutory categories of “stalking conduct”

Article 2(1) defines stalking conduct as acting against the other person’s will and without justifiable grounds in one of the following ways, thereby causing anxiety or fear. The protection extends to the person’s cohabitants and family members as well.

1. (a) Approaching, following, or blocking the path of the other person

2. (b) Waiting or watching at or near their residence, workplace, school or other places of daily life

3. (c) Causing objects, text, words, sounds, images or video to reach them – or to appear on their screen – by post, telephone, fax or an information and communications network

4. (d) Delivering objects directly or through a third party, or leaving objects at or near their residence

5. (e) Damaging objects placed at or near their residence

6. (f) Providing, distributing or posting their personal data or personal location data – or edited, synthesized or processed versions of it – to third parties online

7. (g) Impersonating them online using their name, photograph, video or identity information

Waiting or watching near a home, school or workplace is category (b) – expressly named in the statute. Simply waiting nearby, without demanding a meeting, can already fall within it.

The Supreme Court has also held that calling a person so that their phone rings or a missed-call notice appears may constitute conduct under category (c), regardless of whether the call was actually answered (Supreme Court, 18 May 2023, 2022Do12037). The same applies where the call connects but the caller says nothing. Arguing that “nothing threatening was said” is therefore not, by itself, a defense.

3. What “persistent or repeated” means – Supreme Court 2026Do2108

In its judgment of 16 April 2026 (2026Do2108), the Supreme Court defined the two concepts as follows.

• Persistent: conduct that occurred only once but continued for a considerable period of time, such that it can by itself be evaluated as causing anxiety or fear.

• Repeated: conduct that occurred two or more times, where the separate acts are closely connected by temporal proximity, spatial connection, and singularity and continuity of intent, so that they can be assessed as one series of repeated acts.

By contrast, conduct amounting only to brief, intermittent acts, or to isolated, non-continuous one-off acts occurring several times, cannot be punished under the Act – although each act may separately constitute another offense depending on its content and gravity.

The facts are instructive. The defendant, while driving, happened to spot the victim’s car and followed it for roughly 3 km over about ten minutes; some two and a half months later, he made an illegal U-turn to approach the victim and filmed her for about six minutes. The Court held that ten and six minutes did not amount to continuation for “a considerable period,” and that a gap of two and a half months precluded the close connection required for repetition. Finding the persistence and repetition elements unproven, it reversed the lower court’s conviction.

Whether an act qualifies as stalking conduct is judged on an objective and general standard. Where the act is sufficient to cause anxiety or fear in a person who perceives it, it constitutes stalking conduct even if the recipient did not in fact feel afraid (Supreme Court, 27 September 2023, 2023Do6411). That assessment weighs the parties’ relationship, status and disposition, how the conduct came about, its manner, the parties’ words and actions, and the surrounding circumstances.

4. Contact after a refusal, and waiting outside someone’s home

Applied to the aftermath of a breakup, two warning signs stand out.

First, contact after an explicit refusal. The statutory threshold is conduct “against the other person’s will.” Once someone has said not to contact them again, further messages or calls are plainly against their will, and singularity and continuity of intent become far easier to establish. Circumventing a block through another number or a new account makes the picture considerably worse.

Second, moving from contact to physical proximity. Waiting or watching outside a home, school or workplace is expressly listed in category (b). Because it occurs at the center of the other person’s daily life, it is readily assessed as sufficient to cause anxiety or fear – and if it recurs over several days, the repetition element follows easily.

In practice, the contested issue is rarely whether the act happened. It is the number of acts, the intervals between them, when the refusal was expressed, and how the acts connect to one another. The same “one message” can lead to opposite outcomes depending on when it was sent, how many had preceded it, and why.

5. Penalties, restraining measures and provisional measures

Penalties. A stalking crime is punishable by imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of up to KRW 30 million (Article 18(1)). Where a weapon or other dangerous object is carried or used, the penalty rises to up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 50 million (Article 18(2)). A 2023 amendment deleted the former provision barring prosecution against the victim’s wishes, so proceedings may continue even if the victim does not want the offender punished.

Emergency measures. Where stalking is likely to persist or recur and urgency requires it, judicial police officers may impose a 100-metre no-contact distance and a ban on contact via telecommunications, on their own authority or at the request of the person concerned (Article 4(1)).

Provisional measures. Where necessary for the investigation, trial or protection of the victim, a court may order (i) a written warning, (ii) a 100-metre no-approach order covering the victim, their cohabitants and family and their residence, (iii) a ban on contact via telecommunications, (iii-2) attachment of an electronic tracking device, or (iv) detention in a police detention room or detention centre, and these may be imposed together (Article 9(1)–(2)). No-approach and electronic-device measures may not exceed three months, and detention one month, though the court may extend the former twice by up to three months each where victim protection requires it (Article 9(7)).

Breach. Failing to comply with a no-approach provisional measure carries up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 20 million, and breach of an emergency measure up to one year’s imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 10 million (Article 20(2)–(3)). These are punished separately from the underlying case, so any contact after such an order sharply worsens the situation.

6. If you have been reported, or if you are the victim

If you have been reported, stop all contact immediately – including attempts to apologize or clear up a misunderstanding, which may themselves count as another instance of “repetition.” Then set out, in chronological order, the number of contacts, the intervals, the circumstances, whether the other person responded, and when any refusal was expressed. Under the Supreme Court’s framework the prosecution must prove persistence and repetition, so temporal and spatial gaps between acts, and the incidental nature of an encounter, can be decisive.

If you are the victim, preserve rather than delete the record – screenshots, call logs, CCTV footage. Where possible, state your refusal once, clearly, in a form that leaves a record, such as a text message. If the risk is imminent, you can request emergency measures and provisional measures when reporting the matter.

Stalking cases sit at the intersection of individually minor acts and a course of conduct that may be seriously dangerous, and the same facts can lead to different outcomes depending on how they are organized and presented. At Cheongchul Law Firm, lawyers who handle criminal matters from the investigation stage through trial reconstruct the timeline and assess both the statutory elements and the appropriateness of any measures imposed. If you need advice on a stalking report or complaint, please contact us through our consultation booking page.

This post is provided for general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Outcomes depend on the particular facts and evidence, so please consult a lawyer about your situation.