This article was published on July 8, 2025, at 4:43 p.m. on the ChosunBiz RM Report site.

Illustration=ChatGPT DALL-E 3

A was fined 2 million won for stalking charges in the first trial, but the verdict was overturned to not guilty in the appeals court. The appeals court ruled that A's actions had a 'justifiable reason.' The Stalking Punishment Act states that even actions that cause anxiety or fear to the other party are not considered crimes if there is a justifiable reason. Ultimately, A was acquitted by the Supreme Court.

A legal expert noted, "Since the Stalking Punishment Act was enacted in 2021, there has been a trend of strict punishment," adding, "As time has passed, there have been cases where individuals are acquitted if there is a justifiable reason."

◇ "If I tried to reach out three times to restore the relationship, it's not a crime"

A was previously in a romantic relationship with B, who attended the same school, but they broke up. Afterward, A faced trial for allegedly stalking B by attempting to talk to them three times on campus.

The first trial imposed a fine of 2 million won on A. The court stated, "B sent a message to A after the breakup saying, 'do not follow me,'" and noted, "A disregarded B's intentions and engaged in stalking behavior, causing anxiety and fear."

However, the second trial acquitted A. The court acknowledged, "It is true that B told A not to follow them after the breakup," but also noted, "The two had shared meals after the breakup, and B left room for dialogue by requesting A's apology." The court concluded that "A's actions seemed to be aimed at restoring the relationship with B and appear to have a justifiable reason."

The Supreme Court also confirmed A's acquittal, determining that there was no error in the appeals court ruling.

◇ "Contacting my ex 165 times after they said, 'please hold on to me' is not stalking"

Illustration=ChatGPT DALL-E 3

C faced trial for allegedly stalking D, a former romantic partner. Investigations revealed that despite D's request to "not contact me anymore," C attempted to reach out through phone calls and texts 165 times.

However, the first trial acquitted C. The court stated, "C had previously broken up and reunited with D several times, and each time D requested, 'even if I ask for a breakup, please try to hold onto me,' and 'I will not report you, so please continue to contact me.'" The court further explained, "D initiated the efforts for restoring the relationship, and C was responding to that," affirming that "the claim of a justifiable reason for C's actions is plausible."

◇ A woman who chased after her husband's mistress... Court: 'Actions to maintain marriage are not guilty'

E was charged with contacting her husband's mistress over 20 times through texts and calls, and visiting the mistress's home.

Earlier, E was investigated for her efforts to restore her marital relationship upon discovering her husband's infidelity. However, even after her husband wrote a statement saying he would "never commit infidelity again," he was caught meeting with the mistress, which came to E's attention. E's actions of contacting or visiting the mistress to say "do not meet my husband" occurred afterward.

The first trial court acquitted E. The court remarked, "E's actions were not intended to harass the mistress or cause anxiety and fear, but rather were aimed at preventing a situation where the relationship recovery would become difficult if the mistress met with her husband," stating, "This is a justifiable action aimed at maintaining marital life."

※ This article has been translated by AI. Share your feedback here.