Hello, I am attorney Lee Young-kyung of Law Firm Cheongchul.

The decision we will examine today is the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2026Do2108, decided on April 16, 2026. The issue in this case was whether the defendant’s act of approaching the victim twice by vehicle satisfied the “continuity” or “repetition” element of “stalking crimes” under the Act on Punishment of Stalking Crimes, etc. (hereinafter, the “Stalking Punishment Act”). The Supreme Court’s clarification of the meanings of “continuous” and “repetitive” into relatively clear standards, followed by reversal and remand of the lower court, makes this decision highly significant in practice.

[Question]

Can the act of accidentally spotting the victim while in a vehicle and following her for about 10 minutes (Act 1), and the act of accidentally spotting the victim again about two months later and approaching her while filming her with a mobile phone for about 6 minutes (Act 2), be punished as “stalking crimes” because they satisfy the “continuity” or “repetition” element?

[Answer]

The Supreme Court held that this could not readily be seen that way.

It found that each act lasted only about 10 minutes and about 6 minutes, respectively, so they could not be regarded as having continued for a “substantial period of time”; that there was a time gap of more than about two months between the two acts and no other stalking acts were recognized in the interim; and that both acts were merely one-off acts of approaching the victim after “accidentally” finding her, so neither “continuity” nor “repetition” could be said to have been proven.

1. Facts

Defendant 1, while driving a van owned by him from 3:43 p.m. to 3:52 p.m. on March 31, 2024, accidentally spotted a vehicle driven by the victim and followed it for about 3 km for about 10 minutes (hereinafter, “Act 1”).

Then, after about two months had passed, from 2:33 p.m. to 2:38 p.m. on June 11, 2024, Defendant 2 was driving the van owned by Defendant 1, with Defendant 1 riding in the front passenger seat, when they spotted the victim. They then made a U-turn in violation of traffic rules and approached the victim by filming the victim and related images with a mobile phone camera owned by Defendant 1 (hereinafter, “Act 2”).

The lower court (Changwon District Court, Judgment 2025No2282, decided January 20, 2026) found that the above Acts 1 and 2 caused the victim anxiety or fear and thus constituted stalking crimes, and therefore held Defendant 1 guilty of the portion violating the Stalking Punishment Act.

2. Issues and Relevant Statutes

Article 2 of the Stalking Punishment Act defines “stalking conduct” and “stalking crime” as follows.

The core issue in this case was whether two brief, isolated approaches to the victim satisfied the “continuity” or “repetition” requirement under Article 2, Item 2 of the Stalking Punishment Act.

3. The Supreme Court’s Holding

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

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

② “Repetitive” refers to a case in which a particular act is committed 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, such that the acts as a whole can be evaluated as a series of repetitive acts that cause the other person anxiety or fear.

Where a particular act cannot be assessed in that way and merely amounts to intermittent acts over a short period of time, or where it is simply a series of one-off, non-continuous acts occurring multiple times, the Court held that, apart from the possibility of punishing each act separately depending on its specific content and degree, it cannot be punished as a violation of the Stalking Punishment Act.

Applying this legal framework, the Supreme Court concluded that ⑴ Act 1 lasted only about 10 minutes and Act 2 only about 6 minutes, so they could not be said to have continued for a “substantial period of time”; ⑵ there was a temporal gap of more than about two months between the two acts and no other stalking conduct was recognized during that period; and ⑶ both acts were merely accidental discoveries of the victim followed by approach, so they could not be viewed as having a close relationship in which temporal proximity, spatial connection, and unity and continuity of intent were recognized. Accordingly, the Court held that neither “continuity” nor “repetition” had been proven.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the lower court, which had convicted the defendants, erred in misunderstanding the law concerning the establishment of stalking crimes, and therefore reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Changwon District Court. Meanwhile, because the same grounds for reversal applied to the co-defendant Defendant 2’s aiding-and-abetting portion of violating the Act on the Prevention of Stalking and Protection of Victims, etc., that part was also reversed together under Article 392 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the remaining parts were likewise reversed in full because, under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, they were in a concurrent offenses relationship and a single sentence had been imposed, resulting in reversal of the entire lower-court judgment.

4. Implications and Practical Significance

This decision is highly significant because it relatively clearly organizes the standards for determining “continuity” and “repetition” under the Stalking Punishment Act. Even if the outward form of the conduct formally fits one of the items under Article 2, Item 1 of the Stalking Punishment Act, such as “following” or “watching,” the Court made clear that stalking cannot be punished as a “stalking crime” if ① each act is only an intermittent, one-off act over a short period of time, or ② there is no temporal proximity, spatial connection, or unity and continuity of intent among the acts.

However, the Supreme Court expressly stated that such one-off acts may still be punished as separate crimes depending on their content and degree, so there remains ample room for other criminal liability to arise depending on the specific facts. Therefore, at the investigation and trial stages, it is important not to stop at the outward appearance of the conduct, but to closely analyze the duration of each act, the interval between acts, whether the acts were accidental, and whether intent continued, in order to contest whether the “continuity/repetition” requirement has been satisfied.

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