Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Stalking as a danger offence judged without the victim's actual awareness
Supreme Court, Oct. 30, 2025, 2025Do36 (judgment)
Case name: 스토킹범죄의처벌등에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an act under Article 2(i) of the former Stalking Crime Punishment Act is, judged objectively and generally, sufficient to cause the other party anxiety or fear if the other party became aware of it, does the act amount to stalking regardless of whether the other party actually perceived it or felt such anxiety or fear, and how is that sufficiency assessed?
Holding
Yes. Stalking offences are danger offences whose protected interest is the victim's freedom of decision and freedom to form their life, and their peace of mind, threatened by anxiety or fear caused through the perpetrator's conduct. If an act under Article 2(i) of the former Stalking Crime Punishment Act is, judged objectively and generally, sufficient to cause such anxiety or fear once the other party perceives it, the act is stalking whether or not the other party actually perceived it or actually felt anxiety or fear, and where such a series of acts continues or repeats, the stalking offence is made out. Whether an act reaches that degree of sufficiency is judged objectively by weighing the circumstances before and after it.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러므로 구 스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률(2023. 7. 11. 법률 제19518호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 스토킹처벌법’이라 한다) 제2조 제1호 각 목의 행위가 객관적·일반적으로 볼 때 상대방이 이를 인식할 경우 불안감 또는 공포심을 일으키기에 충분한 정도라고 평가될 수 있다면, 현실적으로 상대방이 구 스토킹처벌법 제2조 제1호 각 목의 행위를 인식하였는지 혹은 그 행위로 인해 불안감 또는 공포심을 갖게 되었는지 여부와 관계없이 ‘스토킹행위’에 해당하고, 나아가 그와 같은 일련의 스토킹행위가 지속되거나 반복되면 ‘스토킹범죄’가 성립한다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, if the acts prescribed in each item of subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the former Act on Punishment of Stalking Crimes, etc. (the one prior to its amendment by Act No. 19518 on July 11, 2023; hereinafter the "former Stalking Punishment Act") may be assessed as, objectively and generally speaking, sufficient to cause anxiety or fear in the other person upon perceiving them, such acts fall under a "stalking act" regardless of whether the other person actually perceived the acts prescribed in each item of subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the former Stalking Punishment Act or came to feel anxiety or fear as a result of such acts, and furthermore, if such a series of stalking acts continues or is repeated, a "stalking crime" is established.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
이때 구 스토킹처벌법 제2조 제1호 각 목의 행위가 객관적·일반적으로 볼 때 상대방으로 하여금 불안감 또는 공포심을 일으키기에 충분한 정도인지는 행위자와 상대방의 관계·지위·성향, 행위에 이르게 된 경위, 행위 태양, 행위자와 상대방의 언동, 주변의 상황 등 행위 전후의 여러 사정을 종합하여 객관적으로 판단해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
At this time, whether the acts prescribed in each item of subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the former Stalking Punishment Act are, objectively and generally speaking, sufficient to cause anxiety or fear in the other person must be determined objectively through a comprehensive assessment of the relationship, status, and disposition of the actor and the other person, the circumstances that led to the act, the manner of the act, the words and conduct of the actor and the other person, surrounding circumstances, and the various circumstances before and after the act.
Factors
- 행위자와 상대방의 관계·지위·성향
- 행위에 이르게 된 경위
- 행위 태양
- 행위자와 상대방의 언동
- 주변의 상황 등 행위 전후의 여러 사정을
Unofficial English translation
• the relationship, status, and disposition of the actor and the other person
• the circumstances that led to the act
• the manner of the act
• the words and conduct of the actor and the other person
• surrounding circumstances and the various circumstances before and after the act
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2023. 9. 27. 선고 2023도6411 판결(공2023하, 1979)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2023Do6411 decided September 27, 2023 (Gong 2023 Ha, 1979)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2023. 9. 27. 선고 2023도6411 판결(공2023하, 1979), 대법원 2023. 12. 14. 선고 2023도10313 판결(공2024상, 254)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How long or how closely spaced must a series of objectively sufficient acts be before it counts as continuing or repeating for the stalking offence?
A later decision setting a threshold for the persistence or repetition of the series would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 2(i) or (ii) of the Stalking Crime Punishment Act would also make the entry stale, because the Court applied the version in force before the amendment of 11 July 2023.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How long or how closely spaced must a series of objectively sufficient acts be before it counts as continuing or repeating for the stalking offence?” vs Independent “What minimum intensity of conduct satisfies the objective threshold when the recipient never becomes aware of it?”
The primary reading asks how long or how closely spaced objectively sufficient acts must be to count as continuing or repeated. The independent reading asks the minimum intensity needed when the recipient never becomes aware of the act.
그러므로 구 스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률(2023. 7. 11. 법률 제19518호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 스토킹처벌법’이라 한다) 제2조 제1호 각 목의 행위가 객관적·일반적으로 볼 때 상대방이 이를 인식할 경우 불안감 또는 공포심을 일으키기에 충분한 정도라고 평가될 수 있다면, 현실적으로 상대방이 구 스토킹처벌법 제2조 제1호 각 목의 행위를 인식하였는지 혹은 그 행위로 인해 불안감 또는 공포심을 갖게 되었는지 여부와 관계없이 ‘스토킹행위’에 해당하고, 나아가 그와 같은 일련의 스토킹행위가 지속되거나 반복되면 ‘스토킹범죄’가 성립한다.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 court below found that the Defendant secretly followed the victim on six occasions over some ten days, watched the victim or waited for the victim, and that some of the acts lasted more than 24 hours. On those facts it held that even without the victim's actual awareness at the time, the acts were stalking conduct objectively sufficient to cause anxiety or fear, and that once such a series of acts continued or repeated, the stalking offence was made out. It therefore kept the first-instance judgment convicting the Defendant on the charges as it stood.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the relevant legal principles, the provisions and the lawfully admitted evidence, it held that the court below had neither breached the rules of logic and experience nor overstepped the limits of free evaluation of evidence, and had not misread the law on the offence under the Stalking Crime Punishment Act. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- An act under Article 2(i) of the former Act which, weighed objectively and generally, would not cause anxiety or fear even if the other party perceived it.
- Conduct that does not run against the other party's will, or that has a proper reason, since those remain conditions of the statutory definition of stalking.
- A single act that neither continues nor repeats, since the stalking offence requires a continuing or repeating series of such acts.
Record verification notes
Set the charge against the version of the Act in force before the amendment of 11 July 2023 (Act No. 19518), since the Court applied the former Act. Then match each charged act with an item of Article 2(i) and gather the circumstances the Court listed, such as the relationship, position and disposition of the two people and how the acts came about, before asking whether they were objectively sufficient. Finally, confirm that the acts form a continuing or repeating series, which the stalking offence requires.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률 제2조 제1호 각 목의 행위가 객관적·일반적으로 볼 때 이를 인식한 상대방에게 불안감 또는 공포심을 일으키기에 충분한 정도라고 평가되는 경우, 현실적으로 상대방이 위 행위를 인식했는지, 그 행위로 불안감 또는 공포심을 갖게 되었는지와 관계없이 ‘스토킹행위’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 위 조항의 행위가 객관적·일반적으로 볼 때 상대방에게 불안감 또는 공포심을 일으키기에 충분한 정도인지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where the acts prescribed in each item of subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the former Act on Punishment of Stalking Crimes, etc. may be assessed as sufficient to cause anxiety or fear in the other person who has perceived them, objectively and generally speaking, such acts fall under a "stalking act" (affirmative) regardless of whether the other person actually perceived the acts under each item of subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the former Act on Punishment of Stalking Crimes, etc., or came to feel anxiety or fear as a result of such acts, and the method for determining whether the acts under the said provision are, objectively and generally speaking, sufficient to cause anxiety or fear in the other person
Summary of the holding
스토킹행위를 전제로 하는 스토킹범죄는 행위자의 어떠한 행위를 매개로 이를 인식한 상대방에게 불안감 또는 공포심을 일으킴으로써 그의 자유로운 의사결정의 자유 및 생활형성의 자유와 평온이 침해되는 것을 막고자 하는 것을 보호법익으로 하는 위험범이다. 그러므로 구 스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률(2023. 7. 11. 법률 제19518호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘구 스토킹처벌법’이라 한다) 제2조 제1호 각 목의 행위가 객관적·일반적으로 볼 때 상대방이 이를 인식할 경우 불안감 또는 공포심을 일으키기에 충분한 정도라고 평가될 수 있다면, 현실적으로 상대방이 구 스토킹처벌법 제2조 제1호 각 목의 행위를 인식하였는지 혹은 그 행위로 인해 불안감 또는 공포심을 갖게 되었는지 여부와 관계없이 ‘스토킹행위’에 해당하고, 나아가 그와 같은 일련의 스토킹행위가 지속되거나 반복되면 ‘스토킹범죄’가 성립한다. 이때 구 스토킹처벌법 제2조 제1호 각 목의 행위가 객관적·일반적으로 볼 때 상대방으로 하여금 불안감 또는 공포심을 일으키기에 충분한 정도인지는 행위자와 상대방의 관계·지위·성향, 행위에 이르게 된 경위, 행위 태양, 행위자와 상대방의 언동, 주변의 상황 등 행위 전후의 여러 사정을 종합하여 객관적으로 판단해야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
구 스토킹범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 법률(2023. 7. 11. 법률 제19518호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1호, 제2호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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