Controversy Over Keeping Paid Members' Identities Private in Baksa Room Case... "Accomplices Providing Funds Should Be Disclosed" "Disclosure Before Conviction Is Unconstitutional"

Police Decide Not to Disclose Personal Information of Two Paid Members
"Judged to Have Limited Crime Prevention Effect"

"Disclosure Needed Due to Significant Involvement," Critics Say

Some Argue "Police Decision to Withhold Personal Information Is Unfair"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Jung-yoon] Controversy is intensifying over the police's decision not to disclose the identities of two paid members of the Telegram 'Baksa Bang' who were charged with joining a criminal organization. Since the identities of the operator of the Baksa Bang case, Jo Joo-bin (24), and other accomplices have already been revealed, there is a need to disclose the identities of these paid members who were heavily involved. This is the first case where the crime of joining a criminal organization was applied to paid members in connection with the Telegram sexual exploitation pornography case, leading to strong demands for their identity disclosure.

According to the police on the 4th, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's Special Investigation Unit for Digital Sex Crimes decided the day before not to refer Im Mo and Jang Mo, who were arrested on charges of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse (distribution of child sexual exploitation materials, etc.) and joining a criminal organization, to the identity disclosure review committee. The police judged that considering the degree of involvement in the crime comprehensively, the practical benefits such as crime prevention effects from disclosing their identities were not high. Ultimately, they were transferred to the prosecution from the Jongno Police Station detention center with their faces covered by caps.

This decision drew criticism. It is argued that since they joined the Baksa Bang knowing it was a criminal organization and provided criminal funds to Jo Joo-bin, their level of involvement is significant, and their identities should be disclosed. Professor Lee Geon-su of the Department of Police Science at Baekseok University said, "They should be regarded as co-principal offenders with Jo Joo-bin," adding, "Disclosing their identities not only satisfies the public's right to know but can also have a preventive effect on similar crimes in the future."

There are also criticisms that this goes against the public demand to severely punish not only the creators and distributors but also the participants. Previously, a Blue House petition titled 'We want the identities of all Telegram Nth Room members to be disclosed' received over 2 million signatures. National Police Chief Min Gap-ryong responded by saying, "We will strictly prosecute illegal offenders and firmly take measures including considering identity disclosure." However, with the failure to disclose these individuals' identities, it is highly likely that the identities of other paid members currently under police investigation will also not be disclosed.

However, some argue that the police's identity disclosure itself is unconstitutional. They claim it is unfair for the investigative agency, the police, to decide on identity disclosure for individuals whose sentences have not yet been finalized. Kang Cheol-gu, attorney for 'Buda' Kang Hoon (19), an accomplice of Jo Joo-bin, explained, "Disclosing the identities of suspects to a degree equivalent to punishment violates the presumption of innocence," adding, "If identity disclosure is decided, there is no procedure to appeal or seek relief even if acquitted, so institutional improvements are necessary." Accordingly, Kang's side submitted a request for a constitutional review of the identity disclosure disposition to the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 11 (Presiding Judge Park Hyung-soon) on the 27th of last month.