Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
An attempted call as transmission breaching a stalking provisional measure
Supreme Court, Sept. 27, 2024, 2024Do7832 (judgment)
Case name: 스토킹범죄의처벌등에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does merely calling the victim so that a missed-call message or blocked-signal mark is displayed breach a provisional measure ordering the defendant not to transmit symbols or words to the victim's handset, whether or not a conversation takes place, and if that same act is also the stalking act constituting the crime, do the two offences stand in ideal concurrence?
Holding
It did. A call sends information carrying the defendant's wish to speak with the victim through base stations and exchanges to the victim's handset; if the victim does not answer, that same information may be displayed as a missed-call message or blocked-signal mark, and that display cannot be treated as having arrived without the defendant's transmission or as generated by the handset alone. Attempting the call is the act of transmission. Where the act of approaching or calling the victim is both the stalking act constituting the crime and a breach of Article 9(1)(ii) and (iii) of the former Stalking Punishment Act, the two offences are multiple offences arising from a single act in social conception and stand in ideal concurrence under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 피고인이 전화를 걸어 피해자 휴대전화에 부재중 전화 문구, 수신차단기호 등이 표시되도록 하였다면 실제 전화통화가 이루어졌는지와 상관없이 ‘피해자의 휴대전화로 유선·무선·광선 및 기타의 전자적 방식에 의하여 부호·문언을 송신하지 말 것’을 명하는 잠정조치를 위반하였다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, if the defendant made a call so that a missed call message, a call-blocking symbol, etc. were displayed on the victim's mobile phone, then regardless of whether an actual telephone conversation took place, the defendant must be regarded as having violated the provisional measure ordering that ‘no signs or words shall be transmitted to the victim's mobile phone by wire, radio, optical, or other electronic means.’
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 창원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
피고인이 전화통화를 시도함으로써 이를 송신하였다고 보는 것이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
it is reasonable to regard it as having been transmitted by the defendant attempting a telephone conversation.
Factors
- ‘피고인이 피해자와 전화통화를 원한다.’는 내용이 담긴 정보의 전파가 송신되어
- ‘피고인의 송신행위 없이 피해자에게 도달된 것’ 내지 ‘피해자 휴대전화의 자체적인 기능에 의하여 생성된 것’이라고 평가할 수는 없다.
- 실제 전화통화가 이루어졌는지와 상관없이
- 스토킹범죄를 구성하는 스토킹행위에 해당하고 구 스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률(2023. 7. 11. 법률 제19518호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 스토킹처벌법’이라 한다) 제9조 제1항 제2호, 제3호의 잠정조치를 위반한 행위에도 해당하는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• the propagation of the information containing the content ‘the defendant wishes to have a telephone conversation with the victim’ was transmitted,
• it cannot be evaluated as ‘something that reached the victim without any transmission act by the defendant’ or ‘something generated by the inherent function of the victim's mobile phone.’
• regardless of whether an actual telephone conversation took place,
• constitutes a stalking act that makes up a stalking crime and also constitutes an act violating the provisional measures under Article 9, paragraph (1), subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the former Act on Punishment of Stalking Crimes (as it stood before its amendment by Act No. 19518 on July 11, 2023, hereinafter the ‘former Stalking Punishment Act’)
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
피고인이 전화통화를 시도함으로써 이를 송신하였다고 보는 것이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
it is reasonable to regard it as having been transmitted by the defendant attempting a telephone conversation.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the stalking act and the later call breaching the measure are separated by days, at what point do they cease to be one act in social conception?
The remand judgment of the Changwon District Court on the calls of around 9 October 2022 and 20 November 2022 will show how this rule is applied in practice. Any amendment to the Stalking Punishment Act, including the provision now in Article 20(2), or a later Supreme Court decision, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reads the holding as setting a new standard for when a call counts as transmission, while the independent reading could not confirm whether a precedent exists, so it marks the precedent relation as undetermined.
피고인이 전화통화를 시도함으로써 이를 송신하였다고 보는 것이 타당하다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When the stalking act and the later call breaching the measure are separated by days, at what point do they cease to be one act in social conception?” vs Independent “Does a call attempt violate the interim order if network-level blocking prevents any information from reaching or appearing on the victim's phone?”
The primary asks at what interval between a stalking act and a later call they stop being one act, while the independent reading asks whether network-level blocking that prevents any display still breaches the order.
따라서 피고인이 전화를 걸어 피해자 휴대전화에 부재중 전화 문구, 수신차단기호 등이 표시되도록 하였다면 실제 전화통화가 이루어졌는지와 상관없이 ‘피해자의 휴대전화로 유선·무선·광선 및 기타의 전자적 방식에 의하여 부호·문언을 송신하지 말 것’을 명하는 잠정조치를 위반하였다고 보아야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Changwon District Court, in its judgment of 30 April 2024 (2023No976), acquitted the defendant on the counts of failing to comply with the provisional measure, and held the stalking offence and the measure offence to be in real concurrence. The defendant had been notified of the measure on 7 October 2022, running to 6 December 2022, and was charged with about 15 calls around 9 October 2022 and about 13 around 20 November 2022. Because the victim had blocked the number, only a blocked-signal mark appeared; that mark might be a sign or word reached by telephone or information network, or appearing through the handset's function, but it was not a symbol, word, sound or image the defendant had transmitted by electronic means.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the acquittal misapprehended the law on the offence under Article 20 of the former Act: the missed-call message and blocked-signal mark were transformed from the information the defendant sent when attempting the call, so they could not be evaluated as arriving without that transmission or as generated by the handset alone. It also held that treating the two offences as in real concurrence misapprehended the law on concurrence, since they are multiple offences arising from a single act in social conception and stand in ideal concurrence under Article 40. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Changwon District Court by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- An attempt to call that leaves no missed-call message or blocked-signal mark on the victim's handset, since the Court's reasoning turns on what the attempt caused to be displayed.
- A provisional measure whose order does not prohibit transmitting symbols or words, such as one that only forbids approaching the victim.
- A case in which the stalking act and the breach of the measure are separate acts rather than one act in social conception.
Record verification notes
Set the order actually served on the defendant, its wording and its period to 6 December 2022, against each call in the charge sheet, since the rule turns on an order prohibiting transmission of symbols or words. Keep the two holdings apart: the first turns on what the attempt displayed, the second on whether the same call was also the stalking act. Note that the version applied is the Act before the amendment by Law No. 19518 of 11 July 2023, whose Article 20 is now Article 20(2).
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 피고인이 전화를 걸어 피해자 휴대전화에 부재중 전화 문구, 수신차단기호 등이 표시되도록 한 경우, 실제 전화통화가 이루어졌는지와 상관없이 ‘피해자의 휴대전화로 유선·무선·광선 및 기타의 전자적 방식에 의하여 부호·문언을 송신하지 말 것’을 명하는 잠정조치를 위반한 것인지 여부(적극) [2] 피고인이 피해자에게 접근하거나 전화를 건 행위가 스토킹범죄를 구성하는 스토킹행위에 해당하고 구 스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률 제9조 제1항 제2호, 제3호의 잠정조치를 위반한 행위에도 해당하는 경우, ‘스토킹범죄로 인한 같은 법 위반죄’와 ‘잠정조치 불이행으로 인한 같은 법 위반죄’의 죄수관계(=상상적 경합범)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where the defendant made a call so that a missed call message, a call-blocking symbol, etc. were displayed on the victim's mobile phone, whether the defendant violated the provisional measure ordering that ‘no signs or words shall be transmitted to the victim's mobile phone by wire, radio, optical, or other electronic means,’ regardless of whether an actual telephone conversation took place (affirmative) [2] Where the defendant's act of approaching the victim or making a call to the victim constitutes a stalking act that makes up a stalking crime and also constitutes an act violating the provisional measures under Article 9, paragraph (1), subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the former Act on Punishment of Stalking Crimes, the relationship between ‘the crime of violating the same Act by a stalking crime’ and ‘the crime of violating the same Act by non-compliance with a provisional measure’ in terms of the number of crimes (=imaginary concurrence)
Summary of the holding
[1] 피고인이 피해자에게 전화를 걸면 ‘피고인이 피해자와 전화통화를 원한다.’는 내용이 담긴 정보의 전파가 송신되어 기지국, 교환기 등을 거쳐 피해자의 휴대전화에 수신되고, 이때 피해자가 전화통화에 응하지 아니하면 피고인이 송신하였던 위와 같은 내용의 정보가 피해자의 휴대전화에 부재중 전화 문구, 수신차단기호 등으로 변형되어 표시될 수 있다. 이러한 부재중 전화 문구, 수신차단기호 등을 ‘피고인의 송신행위 없이 피해자에게 도달된 것’ 내지 ‘피해자 휴대전화의 자체적인 기능에 의하여 생성된 것’이라고 평가할 수는 없다. 피고인이 전화통화를 시도함으로써 이를 송신하였다고 보는 것이 타당하다. 따라서 피고인이 전화를 걸어 피해자 휴대전화에 부재중 전화 문구, 수신차단기호 등이 표시되도록 하였다면 실제 전화통화가 이루어졌는지와 상관없이 ‘피해자의 휴대전화로 유선·무선·광선 및 기타의 전자적 방식에 의하여 부호·문언을 송신하지 말 것’을 명하는 잠정조치를 위반하였다고 보아야 한다. [2] 피고인이 피해자에게 접근하거나 전화를 건 행위가 스토킹범죄를 구성하는 스토킹행위에 해당하고 구 스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률(2023. 7. 11. 법률 제19518호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 스토킹처벌법’이라 한다) 제9조 제1항 제2호, 제3호의 잠정조치를 위반한 행위에도 해당하는 경우, ‘스토킹범죄로 인한 구 스토킹처벌법 위반죄’와 ‘잠정조치 불이행으로 인한 구 스토킹처벌법 위반죄’는 사회관념상 1개의 행위로 성립하는 수 개의 죄에 해당하므로 형법 제40조의 상상적 경합관계에 있다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 창원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률(2023. 7. 11. 법률 제19518호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1호 (다)목, 제2호, 제9조 제1항 제3호, 제20조(현행 제20조 제2항 참조) [2] 구 스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률(2023. 7. 11. 법률 제19518호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1호 (다)목, 제2호, 제9조 제1항 제2호, 제3호, 제18조 제1항, 제20조(현행 제20조 제2항 참조), 형법 제40조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger