Hello, I’m Attorney Lee Young-kyung of Law Firm Cheongchul.

The judgment we will look at today is the Supreme Court decision 2026Do2108, decided on 2026. 4. 16. This case concerns whether the defendant’s act of approaching the victim twice using a vehicle satisfies the “continuity” or “repetition” element of “stalking crime” under the Act on Punishment of Stalking Crimes (hereinafter, the “Stalking Punishment Act”). The Supreme Court has significant practical meaning in that it reversed and remanded the lower court after organizing the meanings of “continuous” and “repetitive” into relatively clear standards.

[Question]

Could the act of accidentally spotting the victim from a vehicle and following her for about 10 minutes (First Act), and the act of accidentally spotting the victim again about two months later and approaching her for about 6 minutes while filming her with a mobile phone (Second Act), be punished as meeting the “continuity” or “repetition” requirement of “stalking crime”?

[Answer]

The Supreme Court held that it was difficult to view them that way.

It held that each act lasted only about 10 minutes and about 6 minutes, so it is difficult to regard them as acts that continued for a “substantial period of time”; there was a temporal gap of more than about two months between the two acts, and no other stalking conduct was recognized in the meantime; and both acts were merely one-off acts of approaching the victim upon accidentally spotting her, so neither “continuity” nor “repetition” could be said to have been proven.

1. Facts

Defendant 1, while driving his own passenger van from around 2024. 3. 31. 3:43 p.m. to 3:52 p.m., happened to spot the vehicle driven by the victim and followed it for about 3 km for about 10 minutes (hereinafter, the “First Act”).

Then, after about 2 months had passed, from around 2024. 6. 11. 2:33 p.m. to 2:38 p.m., while Defendant 2 was driving a passenger van owned by Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 was riding in the front passenger seat, they spotted the victim and turned the vehicle around by making an illegal U-turn, approaching the victim by filming her and related matters with the camera of Defendant 1’s mobile phone (hereinafter, the “Second Act”).

The lower court (Changwon District Court, 2026. 1. 20. decision 2025No2282) found that the above First and Second Acts caused the victim anxiety or fear and thus constituted stalking crime, and therefore found Defendant 1 guilty of violating the Stalking Punishment Act.

2. Issues and Relevant Statutes

The Stalking Punishment Act sets forth “stalking conduct” and “stalking crime” in Article 2 as follows.

The key issue in this case was whether the two approach acts, carried out one-off over a short period of time, satisfy the “continuity” or “repetition” requirement under Article 2(2) of the Stalking Punishment Act.

3. The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court first organized the meanings of “continuous” and “repetitive” as follows.

① “Continuous” means a case in which a specific act, even if done only once, continues for a substantial period of time and can itself be evaluated as conduct that causes the other party anxiety or fear.

② “Repetitive” means a case in which a specific act is done two or more times, and there is a close relationship among the acts, with temporal proximity, spatial connection, and unity and continuity of intent recognized, so that the acts as a whole can be evaluated as a series of repetitive acts causing the other party anxiety or fear.

If a specific act merely amounts to intermittent conduct over a short period that cannot be so evaluated, or if it is nothing more than one-off, non-continuous acts carried out multiple times, then, although separate punishment may be possible depending on the specific content and degree of each act, it cannot be punished as a violation of the Stalking Punishment Act.

Applying this legal principle, the Supreme Court held that ⑴ the First Act lasted only about 10 minutes and the Second Act only about 6 minutes, so it is difficult to say that either continued for a “substantial period of time”; ⑵ there was a temporal gap of about two months between the two acts, and no other stalking conduct was recognized in the meantime; and ⑶ both acts merely involved accidentally spotting the victim and approaching her, so they could not be viewed as having the close relationship in which temporal proximity, spatial connection, and unity and continuity of intent are recognized. Considering these points together, the Court held that it was difficult to say that proof had been made of either “continuity” or “repetition”.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the lower court, which had found them guilty, erred by misunderstanding the legal principles governing the establishment of stalking crime, so it quashed the lower court judgment and remanded the case to the Changwon District Court. Meanwhile, because the same ground for reversal also applied to the portion concerning aiding and abetting Defendant 2, the co-defendant, in violating the Act on the Prevention of Stalking and Protection of Victims, that part was also quashed pursuant to Article 392 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the remaining parts were in a concurrent crimes relationship under the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence had been imposed, the entire lower court judgment was quashed.

4. Implications and Practical Significance

This ruling is significant in that it relatively clearly organized the standards for determining “continuity” and “repetition” under the Stalking Punishment Act. Even if the outward form of the conduct formally falls under each item of Article 2(1) of the Stalking Punishment Act, such as “following” or “watching,” it makes clear that the conduct cannot be punished as a “stalking crime” if ① each act is merely a brief, intermittent, one-off act, or ② temporal proximity, spatial connection, and unity and continuity of intent are not recognized between the acts.

However, the Supreme Court expressly stated that such one-off acts may still be punishable as separate crimes depending on the content and degree of the conduct, so there remains ample room for other criminal liability to be established depending on the specific case. Therefore, at the investigation and trial stages, it is important not to stop at the outward form of the act, but to closely analyze the length of time of each act, the interval between acts, whether the acts were coincidental, and the continuity of intent, and to argue whether the requirements of “continuity/repetition” are satisfied.

Law Firm Cheongchul is composed of attorneys who have experience both representing suspects and defendants in criminal cases, including violations of the Stalking Punishment Act, and representing victims to obtain relief of their rights. If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please do not hesitate to contact Law Firm Cheongchul.