On April 5, the police publicly revealed the identity of Kim Tae Hyun, the prime suspect for three brutal murders preceded by stalking one victim, according to Yonhap. In accordance with the public’s increasing demands for heavier repercussions to stalking, the National Assembly passed a related bill to strengthen punishment. The effectiveness of the new legislative is still in question, and many remain doubtful that the new legal consequences for stalking will help Korea cross the threshold into a better protected society.

Kim allegedly stabbed three women, two daughters and their mother, in their apartment, where he was arrested. After interrogation, the police determined that the suspect premediated his killing spree, going as far as to pose as a delivery worker and find the eldest daughter’s address by examining a photo of a package with her printed address. Further investigation showed that Kim had stalked the daughter for approximately three months after meeting her via an online game.

Whereas stalkers like Kim were free to design their crimes, the existing stalking laws failed to protect the victims. This is because the previous legislation treated stalking as “continuous harassment,” a minor offense. As a result, offenders were either penalized with only a 100,000 won fee or a mere detention. There have been contentions that stricter regulations may have prevented Kim’s murders, not to mention handling the 90 percent of stalking cases that went unpunished in 2020.

Implemented as a response, the new stalking law promises to press heavier charges, including a fine of up to 50 million won and imprisonment for up to five years, if weapons are involved. The legislation also includes prevention measures to keep the stalking from evolving into more serious misconducts. While many voiced their satisfaction with the new regulations, some critics and anti-stalking activists expressed disappointment, for which the reasons will become clearer with a closer examination of the legislation.

The novel stalking law is criticized in that on its own, it is difficult to effectively protect victims. In particular, that the law defines stalking crimes as crimes against will is a fundamental limitation. This limitation occurs because perpetrators can utilize their preexisting relationship with the victim and personally express their desire not to be punished. Thus, it may cause the offender to press the victim to drop the charges. According to Hankuk Ilbo, "In stalking crimes where the victim's daily life is often exposed to suspects, the new law cannot prevent the possibility of victims being gaslighted by the perpetrator."

To continue, stalking crimes have a high risk of accelerating into violent crimes against those in vicinity of the victim, including their families, colleagues, and related police officers. On the other hand, according to the Stalking Punishment Act, victims of stalking crimes are limited to "people directly affected by stalking crimes," meaning that the people in the victims’ daily lives have no protection whatsoever. However, stalking causes great damage and pain not only to the victims but also to those near them, who are also very likely to be assaulted by the stalker, as shown with Kim’s case. Therefore, it is justifiable to state that the law designated the scope of what a “victim” is too narrowly.

Likewise, there are numerous blind spots in the new stalking law that acts as a serious threat to those who are in danger of being stalked. Even the slightest sign of lax consequences can force stalkers to spiral out of control. The only solution seems to be an even more heavily armored law.