0
/ Getty Images Bank

"Even though I went somewhere I usually don't, that person was right in front of me."

Choi Hye-ji (pseudonym), who was dating a colleague at work, suffered from stalking after ending the relationship in 2023. The perpetrator secretly attached a GPS location tracker to Choi's vehicle to monitor her movements. Even on days when she traveled to unfamiliar areas to meet acquaintances, the perpetrator tracked her down there. It was only after discovering the location tracker in her vehicle late into the ordeal that she realized she had been under constant surveillance all along.

Critics point out that it is difficult to prevent crime victimizations due to current laws that fail to define electronic location tracking as an independent act of stalking. It is an era where "location tracking stalking"—peeking into someone's entire day—is possible by simply attaching a GPS location tracker to their vehicle in secret. While stalking crimes increase every year, the law remains stuck in a state of merely chasing after crimes after the fact.

According to police 112 emergency call statistics on July 29, stalking reports increased by 39.9% from 31,947 cases in 2024 to 44,684 cases last year. Compared to 14,509 cases in 2021, the first year the Anti-Stalking Act took effect, the figure more than tripled in four years. Intimate partner violence reports also grew from 88,394 to 105,344 cases over the same period. Furthermore, in the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family's 2024 Violence Against Women Survey, 21% of victims of technology-facilitated control answered that they had experienced having their locations forcibly checked through GPS devices or location tracking applications.

The fact that location tracking can go beyond simple surveillance and be misused as a tool for violent crimes was clearly demonstrated in the Namyangju stalking murder case that occurred last April. Investigations revealed that the perpetrator attached location tracking devices to five vehicles in total, including three belonging to the victim, one to the victim's mother, and one to an acquaintance, to track her travel routes. Although the victim reported finding a suspicious location tracking device in her car, a request for forensic appraisal to the National Forensic Service was made only a month later. The victim ultimately lost her life following persistent stalking.

The current Anti-Stalking Act defines stalking as acts such as approaching or following a victim, or waiting for or watching them near their residence or workplace. However, the act of attaching GPS location trackers or smart tags to identify travel routes is not explicitly specified on its own. While the current law requires "repetition" as a requirement for an act of stalking to be established, attaching a location tracker is judged as a one-time act. Electronic location tracking is either handled as a violation of the Location Information Act or left to judicial interpretation in individual cases.

However, because the Location Information Act is designed for personal information protection, it does not directly link to victim protection procedures under the Anti-Stalking Act, such as emergency protective measures or provisional measures. This means that even if it is confirmed that a perpetrator is tracking a location, proactive police intervention may be limited until additional actions, such as approaching or making threats, occur.

To address these limitations, the police also recently released countermeasures against stalking crimes. However, critics evaluate them as a day late and a dollar short, focusing excessively on management after a crime occurs. Announcing measures to strengthen responses to stalking crimes on July 28, the National Police Agency stated it would pursue expanding dedicated crime victim protection organizations and establishing a system to share location information of stalking electronic monitoring device wearers in real time between the police and the Ministry of Justice. Yet legal safeguards allowing police intervention at the stage of attaching GPS location trackers were omitted.

Attorney Lee Eun-ui emphasized, "While the act of attaching a GPS location tracker happens only once, location data collection occurs continuously, so there is a need to view it as effectively an ongoing act of stalking." She further suggested, "If the Anti-Stalking Act is not applied to the act of attaching a GPS location tracker, it is difficult to utilize victim protection measures such as emergency protective measures or provisional measures. Legislative revisions are necessary so that acts whose effects persist over time can also be recognized as acts of stalking."

                                                                                                           Kim Tae-hoon