Teacher acquitted of stalking charges after sending 37 messages to colleague

A teacher who sent 37 messages to a colleague criticizing the colleague's work ability and attitude — calling the behavior "unreasonable," among other things — via workplace messenger and KakaoTalk has been acquitted on appeal of violating the Stalking Punishment Act. The first trial had found the teacher guilty, ruling the messages "sufficient to cause anxiety or fear," and imposed a fine. The appeals court, however, determined that "it is difficult to view the act of sending each message as sufficient, from an objective and general standpoint, to cause anxiety or fear in the recipient."

According to legal sources, the Suwon District Court's Criminal Division 8-3, presided over by Judge Lee Kyung-min, overturned the first-trial conviction in July and acquitted the defendant, identified only as A, on charges of violating the Stalking Punishment Act. The first trial had found A guilty and imposed a fine of 1 million won ($722).

A was accused of repeatedly sending stalking messages to a fellow teacher, identified only as B, via workplace messenger or KakaoTalk on 37 separate occasions between July 2022 and February 2023.

Investigators referred A to trial on the grounds that A had persistently and repeatedly sent B writings capable of causing anxiety or fear, even after B had expressed a desire to stop receiving contact.

The messages primarily concerned B's ability to write exam questions. A was found to have repeatedly sent similar messages outside working hours — including on weekends — and even while B was on sick leave. Representative examples included the following.

A was found to have continued sending messages even after B filed a stalking complaint against A.

In February 2023, A sent a message saying, "Every time I see you come back from your rest after filing a false stalking report and show up to work looking perfectly healthy, I feel furious — I hope you withdraw it as soon as possible." A also demanded that B "write a letter of apology, formally apologize in front of all staff, personally confess to the vice principal that you are the perpetrator of stalking and defamation, and then transfer your sick-leave pay into my salary account." A went on to say, "You should be embarrassed for filing a report without even knowing what stalking is."

A was ultimately indicted in 2024.

The first trial found A guilty. In November 2024, the court sentenced A to a fine of 1 million won.

The first-trial court noted that A "continued to send messages to the victim even outside working hours and on public holidays," and that A "did not seek any other means of resolution despite the victim explicitly expressing a wish not to be contacted, instead delivering messages of a similar nature to the victim over a prolonged and continuous period."

The court added that "the victim testified to experiencing anxiety and mental distress as a result of A's conduct," and that "taking into account the fact that the victim took sick leave from work and obtained a medical certificate, the conduct constitutes stalking."

The appeals court reached a different conclusion.

The appeals court acknowledged that "the messages A sent to the victim contained content that could be perceived as mocking, and content capable of causing displeasure or a sense of humiliation," but determined that "the primary substance concerned A, as a sunbae, commenting on the victim's work ability and attitude."

The court further noted that "A and the victim were in a relationship where mutual contact for work purposes was unavoidable, and accordingly the messages were not sent unilaterally to the victim but were exchanged as part of a back-and-forth interaction." It added that "even if some of the messages A sent were excessive, it is difficult to entirely deny their work-related nature."

The court also pointed out that "even if the situation was primarily triggered by A's words and actions, the victim had also sent messages to A that could cause displeasure and had actively demanded responses, and some of the messages in this case were replies A sent in response to messages the victim had sent first."

The appeals court stated that "the charges are premised on selecting, from among the many messages exchanged between A and the victim, only those sent by A to the victim that could cause the victim displeasure or a sense of humiliation, and treating A's act of sending those messages as constituting 'stalking.'" It continued: "However, even though the content of the messages includes expressions that appear to criticize or mock the victim's work ability or attitude, there is no abusive language or threatening expressions."

The court added that A and the victim "are of the same sex, and A does not appear to have a violent disposition." Taking into account the relationship between A and the victim and the unavoidability of mutual contact, the victim's responses to A's messages, the fact that most messages were sent through a workplace messenger during working hours, and the legislative purpose of the Stalking Punishment Act and the legal interests it protects, the court concluded that "it is difficult to view A's act of sending each of the messages in this case as sufficient, from an objective and general standpoint, to cause anxiety or fear in the recipient."

The ruling is now final. The prosecution did not appeal the acquittal.