Case Type: Criminal

Result: Non-Indictment (Dismissal of Charges due to Insufficient Evidence)

■ Case Overview

The client was booked on charges of violating the Stalking Punishment Act due to actions taken during a breakup with a former partner. The client had visited the partner's residence, witnessed them with another individual, and briefly returned to protest. Days later, another visit occurred late at night during ongoing discussions about their breakup. Investigating authorities forwarded the case to the prosecution, viewing these visits as "continuous and repeated" stalking behavior against the victim's will. This placed the client at risk of severe disadvantages, including a criminal record and employment restrictions.

■ Key Defense Strategies

Suhn Law Firm’s Criminal Defense Team (Lead Attorney: Tae-ho Song) meticulously reconstructed the timeline and context of each visit using objective evidence, such as KakaoTalk chat logs. The team focused on refuting the "continuity and repetition" required by law:

• Refuting Continuity/Repetition based on Context: The defense argued that the initial visit occurred before the couple had officially broken up. The subsequent return minutes later was a immediate protest to witnessing the partner with another individual, which should be evaluated as a single, isolated incident rather than distinct, repeated stalking acts.

• Demonstrating Lack of Intent via Chat Logs: By submitting KakaoTalk logs from just before the late-night visit, the defense proved that the partner had indicated they were not home. Consequently, the client arrived without realizing the partner was present, establishing a lack of intentional harassment.

• Highlighting the Nature of the Interaction: The defense emphasized that the entire sequence of events was part of the emotional communication process during a breakup between a dating couple, fundamentally differing from stalking intended to cause fear or anxiety.

■ Case Outcome

The defense team actively submitted legal briefs and factual evidence during the investigation stage. Accepting these arguments, the prosecutor concluded that the client's actions could not be legally defined as continuous or repeated stalking, but rather as communication within the context of a breakup. Ultimately, the client received a Non-Indictment (Dismissal of Charges for Insufficient Evidence).

Case Inquiry: Attorney Tae-ho Song