A court acquitted a defendant in a case where prosecutors sought temporary measures such as a restraining order after confirming additional stalking even while the defendant was on trial for stalking.
According to legal sources on the 9th, Senior Judge Lee Hwan-gi of the Seoul Central District Court Criminal Division 26 acquitted a person identified as A on the 3rd of charges including violating the Act on Punishment of Crime of Stalking. A was accused of repeatedly posting papers reading "ban on religious gatherings" on the shared entrance door of the building where the victim, A's younger sibling, lives, and of repeatedly visiting the victim's residence.
However, the court found it hard to conclude that A's conduct amounted to stalking that would cause the victim anxiety or fear. The court said, "Based on the evidence submitted, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant's conduct constituted a crime or that there was intent."
The issue is that this was a case in which prosecutors confirmed additional stalking harm during the trial phase. The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office formed a "stalking trial cases comprehensive review team" in Nov. last year to review 87 stalking cases on trial. As a result, it confirmed that additional harm occurred in 15 cases (17%), including ongoing threatening contacts, threats related to complaints, and approaches to residences.
A's case was among them. At the time, prosecutors described A's case as "an example where the defendant, the victim's older brother, bore a grudge against the victim due to a family dispute and continued stalking by repeatedly sending threatening text messages to the victim and family, visiting the residence, and attempting so-called 'squatting' in the victim's parking space."
Prosecutors said they conducted sentencing investigations for cases where additional harm was confirmed, and for cases with severe harm they requested the court to impose or extend temporary measures such as bans on contact and approach to the victim, communication bans, and location tracking. In A's case, prosecutors submitted the related harm details as materials to the trial then in progress. However, the temporary measures requested by prosecutors were reportedly dismissed by the court.
The victim's side says the court viewed this case as a "sibling dispute" and assessed each act individually, but in reality it was a series of continuous stalking acts including verbal abuse and visits to the residence. Accordingly, on the 7th it submitted a written opinion to prosecutors requesting an appeal.
Prosecutors have not yet decided whether to appeal. The deadline to appeal is through the 10th.