Hello, this is Cheongchul Law Firm.

After a breakup it is easy to think “I never actually contacted them” or “I only went there once.” But Korea's Stalking Punishment Act turns on the category of the act and whether it was repeated. Some conduct is caught even without any contact, and some conduct constitutes a separate offence on a single occasion.

The video scored five common behaviours for relative risk. Those scores are only an intuitive comparison – what actually governs is the statutory categories. Below we work through each behaviour against the provision that applies.

[Contents]

1. The starting point – a stalking act is not the same as the crime of stalking

2. Waiting outside a workplace or a regular cafe

3. Following someone and checking when they get home

4. Asking a friend where the other person is

5. Secretly fitting a GPS tracker to their car

6. If you have been reported, or you are the one being harmed

1. The starting point – a stalking act is not the same as the crime of stalking

Article 2(1) of the Stalking Punishment Act (스토킹처벌법 제2조 제1호) defines a “stalking act” as conduct falling within the listed categories, carried out against the other person's will and without justifiable grounds, which causes them anxiety or fear. Article 2(2) then defines the crime of stalking as committing such acts persistently or repeatedly.

So conduct falling within a category is not automatically punishable – and equally, “it only happened once” is not always a defence. The two questions to separate are whether the act falls within a statutory category and whether such acts have accumulated.

2. Waiting outside a workplace or a regular cafe

Article 2(1)(b) expressly covers waiting for or watching the other person (or their cohabitant or family) at or near their residence, workplace, school or other place of daily life.

The key point is that no speech or contact is required. Waiting outside a workplace, or watching from a distance, is written into the provision itself. Repeatedly visiting a cafe the person frequents, without any particular reason, in order to wait for or watch them may equally fall within “a place of daily life or its vicinity.”

A single visit may leave room to argue coincidence or an independent purpose. Once a record of repeated visits to the same location builds up, that explanation becomes difficult to sustain.

3. Following someone and checking when they get home

Article 2(1)(a) covers approaching, following, or blocking the path of the other person or their cohabitant or family. Tracing someone's route home to learn where they live and what time they return falls squarely here.

Following often happens without the other person noticing, but it frequently surfaces afterwards through CCTV, dashcam footage or travel records. Beyond fitting category (a) in itself, such conduct also supports an inference that any later approach was not accidental.

4. Asking a friend where the other person is

This one is different in character. Because it is not directed at the other person, it does not readily fall within any of the listed categories on its own.

It may, however, serve in investigation and trial as evidence of planning and intent behind what followed. If you asked an acquaintance for someone's location and then went to that place, the later visit is hard to reconcile with “I just happened to be passing.” Linked to the surrounding conduct, the overall course of events may be assessed more seriously.

Note also that if you go on to provide, distribute or post that location information to third parties via an information and communications network, Article 2(1)(f) treats the provision, distribution or posting of personal information and personal location information as a stalking category in its own right.

5. Secretly fitting a GPS tracker to their car

This behaviour has a different legal structure from the four above, because a single installation can constitute a separate statutory offence before repetition is even considered.

Article 15(1) of the Act on the Protection and Use of Location Information (위치정보법 제15조 제1항) provides that no person shall collect, use or provide personal location information without the consent of the subject. Article 40(4) of the same Act punishes a violation with imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to KRW 30 million. Covertly attaching a GPS device to someone's vehicle to track their movements may amount to collecting personal location information without consent – and no “persistent or repeated” element is required.

On top of that, if the location so obtained is used to follow the person (category (a)) or wait near their places of daily life (category (b)) on a repeated basis, the crime of stalking may be established separately. Under Article 18(1) of the Stalking Punishment Act that carries up to three years' imprisonment or a fine of up to KRW 30 million, rising under Article 18(2) to five years or KRW 50 million where a weapon or other dangerous object is carried or used.

In short, fitting a tracker first raises an independent offence under the Location Information Act; the approach and waiting conduct that follows then brings the Stalking Punishment Act into play alongside it. That is why “I only fitted it once” does not work as an answer.

6. If you have been reported, or you are the one being harmed

If a report has been made against you, stop all contact immediately. Even a message intended to apologise or clear up a misunderstanding may be treated as contact against the other person's will and add to the pattern of repetition. If a device has been fitted, discuss the approach with counsel rather than removing or disposing of it on your own initiative.

If you are the one being harmed, preserve rather than delete the record: screenshots, call logs, CCTV and dashcam footage. Check your vehicle and belongings for unfamiliar devices; if you find one, photograph its position and condition before notifying the authorities. A clear record of when you refused further contact is important material for assessing everything that came after.

Stalking cases sit awkwardly between the triviality of each individual act and the danger of the overall course of conduct, so the same facts can produce different outcomes depending on how they are organised. Cheongchul Law Firm has handled many stalking and restraining-order matters; if the line feels unclear, start with a review that separates the conduct act by act.

This post is provided for general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Outcomes depend on the facts and evidence of each case.