"Missed Calls Are Not Stalking" ... Not Guilty Even After Calling Ex 51 Times

Court: "Even if it caused anxiety to the other party, the ringtone is not a transmitted sound"
Similar rulings follow, raising concerns about stalking blind spots

[Image source=Pixabay]

[Asia Economy Reporter Yoon Seul-gi] A ruling has been made that repeatedly calling an ex-partner cannot be punished under the Stalking Act if the other party did not answer the calls. Recently, rulings stating that 'missed calls' cannot be punished under the Stalking Act have been issued one after another, raising criticism that this creates a blind spot in stalking regulations.

On the 15th, the Incheon District Court Criminal Division 10 (Judge Hyun Sun-hye) announced that it acquitted Ms. A (19, female), who was indicted for violating the Act on the Punishment of Stalking Crimes.

Ms. A was charged with stalking for making 51 phone calls to her ex-boyfriend Mr. B (38) over four days from January 8 to 11. She made as many as 39 calls in a single day from early morning to evening, and when Mr. B continued not to answer, she visited his home twice on January 17 and March 15.

The prosecution applied stalking charges to Ms. A's actions in May and filed a summary indictment with a fine of 500,000 won, but Ms. A claimed innocence and requested a formal trial. However, the court ruled that since the calls were repeatedly made but the other party did not answer, resulting only in ringing sounds and 'missed call' notifications, it could not be punished under the Stalking Act.

The court stated, "Under the Stalking Act, acts that cause anxiety or fear to the other party by transmitting sounds via phone or information and communication networks require both the repeated sending of sounds and the receiving of those sounds." It added, "The 'ringing sound' from the other party's phone is not a sound transmitted through information and communication networks," and ruled, "Even if repeated ringing sounds caused fear or anxiety to the other party, it does not constitute a violation of the law." Furthermore, "Even if 'missed call' or the caller's number is displayed on Mr. B's mobile phone, this is merely a display function of the phone itself," and "It is difficult to consider this as a case where a 'signal' was transmitted," the court added.

Earlier, on the 27th of last month, the Incheon District Court Criminal Division 9 (Judge Jung Hee-young) also acquitted a man in his 50s who was charged with stalking for repeatedly contacting his ex-partner by making 10 consecutive calls over 4 hours in a day. The court held that since the calls were continuously made but the other party did not answer, resulting only in ringing sounds and 'missed call' notifications, it could not be punished under the Stalking Act.

In response, the Korean Women Lawyers Association issued a statement on the 8th criticizing the court for interpreting the law technically without properly considering the context of the victim. The association pointed out, "It overlooked the fact that the legislative purposes of the Information and Communications Network Act, which aims to protect users of information and communication services, and the Stalking Punishment Act, which aims to punish stalking crimes and protect victims, are completely different," and urged, "We expect the case to be viewed through a thorough examination of the legislative purpose of the Stalking Punishment Act, the definition of stalking, and judgments from the victim's perspective."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.