Heo Eun-seok, a lawyer at Hanbyul Law Firm, argued that the key issue in stalking cases is not whether there was a "consensual purpose" but whether there was contact after the warning, and that if a defendant who has been warned by the police directly contacts the other party, the prosecution may perceive that there is no sign of remorse and the disposition may be unfavorable. He warned that the moment such direct contact becomes part of the case record, there is a real risk that a case that was deferred prosecution or non-referral will be converted into a formal prosecution or fine.

Hanbyul's Kim explained that in practice, there are cases where even a single contact for settlement purposes is recorded and categorized as a "post-warning contact," resulting in a more severe penalty. Both lawyers noted that while there are counterarguments that a one-time contact may not meet the requirements of a crime as a matter of law, the real risk remains due to the tendency of investigative practices to make formal judgments, and recommended avoiding direct contact and responding through counsel.