Many people think stalking only becomes a legal problem when the victim immediately realizes what is happening. But real life is often very different.
Sometimes a person does not notice anything unusual at first.
Only later do small details begin connecting together.
A parked car that stayed too long near home.
Someone appearing again and again in familiar places.
Photos taken secretly. Hidden devices.
Quiet observation that nobody noticed at the time.
For many foreigners living in Korea, this area of Korean law can feel confusing.
Some people assume that if the other person did not feel anxiety or fear in the moment, then there was no crime. However, Korean courts have explained that this is not always true.
Under the Act on Punishment of Crime of Stalking, an act of stalking does not require the other person to notice the conduct immediately.
The law focuses more on whether the conduct itself could objectively cause anxiety or fear to the other person.
To better understand how the law applies, let’s look at a real-life court case.
The names of the individuals involved are fictional, and certain aspects of the original case have been adapted(Reference Case: Incheon District Court Decision 20○○Gojeong○○ [Violation of the Act on Punishment of Crime of Stalking] )
A woman we can call Emma(Pseudonym, Defendant) was involved in a divorce lawsuit with her husband, Daniel(Pseudonym, Victim).
During that time, Daniel had begun a relationship with another woman, Sophia.
Emma became suspicious and wanted evidence of the affair.
What started as suspicion slowly became repeated watching and recording.
One day, Emma followed Daniel through the city.
She secretly took photos and videos of Daniel and Sophia walking together and spending time together outdoors.
The court later described this as approaching and following the other person.
But the situation did not stop there.
Later, Emma went near Sophia’s residence.
Believing Daniel was staying there, she prepared two mobile phones in advance.
One phone was hidden inside a container and placed across from the residence, etc.
Another phone was installed using a tripod so that it could continuously record the entrance area.
The purpose was simple: to capture Daniel entering or leaving the home.
After that, Emma parked a vehicle owned by her father near Daniel’s residence.
The vehicle’s dashcam recorded people entering and leaving the area for a long period of time.
What is important is that Daniel did not immediately know these things were happening.
Emma argued exactly that point in court.
She claimed that Daniel had not recognized her conduct at the time, so her acts did not cause anxiety or fear. Therefore, according to her argument, her conduct should not be considered stalking.
The court disagreed.
The Korean court explained that stalking is considered a “위험범”
In simple words, this means the law does not always require proof that the victim actually felt fear in that exact moment.
Instead, the question is whether the conduct itself was serious enough that it could objectively cause anxiety or fear to the other person.
The court also pointed out something very realistic: many acts of stalking happen secretly.
In fact, some stalking behavior is designed specifically so the victim will not notice immediately.
If the law only punished conduct discovered in the exact moment it happened, then more carefully hidden conduct might escape punishment completely.
The court explained that this would go against the purpose of the law itself.
This is why the timing of the victim’s awareness was not the most important issue.
The court looked at the entire situation together: the relationship between the parties, the ongoing dispute, the repeated following and recording, the installation of recording devices near a residence, etc., and the long periods of observation.
Viewed objectively, the conduct was enough to cause anxiety or fear.
Emma also argued that her actions were not “continuous or repetitive” because there were only three main incidents over several months.
But the court rejected that argument as well.
Even though there were only a few separate events, each act lasted for a long time and involved deliberate preparation.
Because of this, the court found sufficient continuity.
In the end, the court found that Emma had engaged in an act of stalking directed at Daniel against his will and without good reason.
The court imposed a fine but suspended the pronouncement of punishment after considering several circumstances, including the fact that the conduct occurred partly in public places and that she had no previous criminal record.
This case is important because it shows how Korean law understands stalking in modern life.
Stalking is not limited to obvious threats or direct confrontation.
Quiet observation, hidden recording, waiting near a residence, etc., or placing things, etc. in the vicinity thereof can also fall under the law when those acts objectively create fear or anxiety.
For foreigners in Korea, this is an especially important point to understand during breakups, divorce disputes, or emotionally difficult relationships.
Some conduct that may feel like “just gathering evidence” can cross the legal line if it becomes repeated surveillance directed at another person against their will.
And for people who later discover that someone had secretly been watching or recording them, Korean law does not simply dismiss the situation because they “did not know at the time.”
The law recognizes that fear sometimes begins not in the moment the conduct happened, but in the moment the truth is finally uncovered.
※ All content posted on this blog is intended to provide general legal information. The application of the law may vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case, so please consult with an attorney for detailed legal advice before making any decisions based on the content of this blog. Please be advised that the operator of this blog assumes no legal responsibility for any issues that may arise from the use of the information obtained here.
All content on this blog is carefully created based on the author’s knowledge, experience, and thoughtful consideration, and is protected as intellectual property. Unauthorized copying, reproduction, modification, reposting, or any commercial use of the content is not permitted.
However, if you find the content helpful, you are welcome to share it in good faith for non-commercial purposes or quote it within a reasonable scope, provided that the source is clearly acknowledged. Your cooperation in respecting both fair information sharing and copyright protection is greatly appreciated.
