<Anchor>
There is a case that we have covered that shows that there are many things that we need to supplement and fix in order to prevent repeated stalking crimes.
Two months ago, a man who secretly pursued an unknown woman and followed her into the elevator of her apartment was caught by the police.
However, the punishment the man received was only a fine of 1 million won, and the safety measures for the victim were only lax.
Reporter Ha Jeong-yeon reported exclusively.
<Reporter>
Last July, on a rainy evening, Mr. A found a suspicious man in his apartment.
[Mr A/Victim: I was pressing the common password on the first floor.
But it looks like someone is watching over there...
.]
As soon as the door opened, I followed him into the apartment.
The fear started when this man, who did not move even though he waited in front of the mailbox in an anxious mind, climbed up to the elevator.
[Mr A/Victim: The door closes, so I quickly put my body in and came in, don't press the floor now.
His hair turned white.]
He asked for his contact details without revealing his identity.
[Mr A/Victim: 'What are you doing?'
and looked into his eyes.
'I have a crush on you, but could you give me your number?'
I said this while looking into my eyes, and I almost collapsed.]
He went down to the first floor again and shouted that he would call the police, and then he ran away.
The police, who started the investigation upon the report of Mr. A, conducted an investigation on the charge of trespassing, saying that this was a one-time offense and was not subject to the Stalking Punishment Act.
However, the arrest warrant was not even applied for, and on the 13th, the prosecution ended the investigation with a request for a summary order of 1 million won in fine.
Safety measures were also lax.
I didn't know when it would come again and I was worried about retaliatory crimes, so I applied for a smart watch, but I couldn't figure out who the perpetrator was, what he looked like, or even the exact face.
When I asked the police for the perpetrator's information, the only reply came back saying that it was impossible under the Personal Information Protection Act, and that it was requested to disclose the information.
[Mr A/Victim: How did you feel at that time?
It can only be understood as 'Are you saying that my safety is worse than the perpetrator's personal information now?'
You can't know anything and you can't be careful about that person because you don't know.]
(Video coverage: Lee Sang-hak, Video editing: Lee So-young)
---
Reporter Ha Jeong-yeon, who covered this content, is here.
Q. It means that the police gave the smartwatch to use when it was in danger, but did not teach the person who was chasing the victim.
[Reporter Ha Jung-yeon: As you said, even if you have a smart watch, it will be of no use if you do not know who the perpetrator is.
Also, at the time of the crime, the victim saw his face for a while, but he was in a state of fear, and the assailant was even wearing a mask at the time.]
[Mr. you keep looking at
But I don't know if that person is looking at me on the spot today or not.
It 's a powerless situation.]
[Reporter Ha Jung-yeon: Experts point out that if the crime is acknowledged and there is a risk of retaliation, it is necessary to improve the information so that the basic information of the perpetrator can be provided even in a limited way in order to protect the victim. ]
[Lee Eun-eui/Attorney: It takes too long to find out who this person is.
In the meantime, if it's really dangerous, you could be subject to additional crimes.]
Q. From the victim's point of view, it must be so scary to remember that he followed the elevator, but I wonder if the level of punishment is too weak. Do you think it is?
[Reporter Ha Jung-yeon: Yes, under the current law, victims cannot directly obtain basic information such as the suspect's name, age, or residential area through an investigation agency.
This is because of the Personal Information Protection Act.
There are other methods such as disclosure claims litigation, but the process is very tedious and the problem is that it takes a very long time.
It is also not uncommon for courts to make public decisions.
In addition, there are also pointed out whether it is correct to apply only the charges of trespassing in these cases.
It is pointed out that it is necessary to adjust the scope so that the Stalking Punishment Act can be applied to crimes that may lead to retaliation or continuous stalking.]
(Video coverage: Lee Sang-hak, video editing: Kim Jun-hee)