[Crime Insight] From the 'Suspect Identity Disclosure' System to Key Issues

Increasing Trend of Personal Information Disclosure in Cases like 'Telegram' Incident
Goyujeong and Baek Gwangseok with Faces Covered... Blind Spots Also Exist
Constitutionally Established 'Presumption of Innocence Principle'
Fundamental Questions on the Legitimacy of Personal Information Disclosure

"1.6 million cases." This is the approximate number of crimes that occur annually in South Korea. The types of crimes are diverse, including violent crimes, intellectual crimes, traffic crimes, and cybercrimes, and their methods are increasingly evolving. In a reality where anyone can become a victim, having awareness of crime and knowing preventive measures can minimize damage. aims to analyze major domestic crime trends based on the latest cases and cover prevention, response methods, and policy changes. This week's topic is the "disclosure of suspects' personal information," which has become an issue again due to the recent "Jeju middle school student murder case."

Baek Gwang-seok, who was arrested and indicted on charges of murdering his former cohabiting partner's middle school son, is being transferred from Jeju Dongbu Police Station to the prosecution on the 27th.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Gwan-ju] The personal information of suspects Baek Gwang-seok (48) and Kim Si-nam (46) in the Jeju middle school student murder case was disclosed on the 26th. Initially, the police did not consider disclosing their personal information, but as public opinion worsened and new evidence was confirmed, they held a Personal Information Disclosure Review Committee (PIDRC) meeting and decided to disclose their information.

However, their current faces were not properly revealed. Typically, when the disclosure of a suspect's personal information is decided, the suspect's current face is naturally disclosed at the time of transfer from the police to the prosecution, i.e., at the point of indictment. However, due to the spread of COVID-19 and the wearing of masks, unless the suspect voluntarily removes the mask, there is no way to force it.

Previously, in the case of Ko Yoo-jeong (38), who murdered her ex-husband in 2019, this "blind spot" was already confirmed. Despite the police's decision to disclose her personal information, Ko Yoo-jeong hid her face with her hair. While her past face was disclosed, her current face was never revealed during multiple trials until the Supreme Court confirmed her life sentence in November last year.

Increasing Personal Information Disclosures

The disclosure of suspects' personal information by the police has rapidly increased recently. Since 2015, a total of 32 suspects have had their personal information disclosed. Among them, 24 were suspects of violent crimes, and 8 were suspects of sexual crimes.

Especially after last year's "Telegram Doctor's Room and Nth Room" cases, disclosures related to sexual crimes have significantly increased. Starting with Jo Joo-bin (25), the operator of the "Doctor's Room," who was the first suspect to have his personal information disclosed for sexual crimes, six suspects had their information disclosed last year, and two this year. This year, the suspects whose information was disclosed include Kim Young-jun (29), who recorded and distributed nude videos of 1,300 men, and Choi Chan-wook (26), accused of sexually exploiting minors.

'Baksa Bang' operator Jo Joo-bin. Photo by Moon Ho-nam munonam@

Additionally, the suspects of violent crimes whose personal information was disclosed this year include Baek Gwang-seok and Kim Si-nam, as well as Heo Min-woo (34) from the "Incheon Karaoke Murder Case" and Kim Tae-hyun (25) from the "Nowon Three Women Murder Case," totaling six suspects. The increase in disclosures indicates that increasingly brutal crimes causing social outrage are occurring.

What is the Basis for Suspect 'Personal Information Disclosure'?

South Korea's Constitution stipulates the "presumption of innocence." As a fundamental principle of criminal procedure law, suspects and defendants must be strictly presumed innocent until a final verdict is reached. From this perspective, there is no disagreement that the disclosure of personal information should be done only to the minimum necessary extent.

The basis for disclosing suspects' personal information is found in the "Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes" (Special Violent Crimes Act). The main requirements are: ▲ the crime method is cruel and caused serious damage in a specific violent crime case ▲ there is sufficient evidence to believe the suspect committed the crime ▲ disclosure is necessary solely for public interest, such as guaranteeing the public's right to know, preventing recidivism, and crime prevention ▲ the suspect is not a juvenile.

Among these, the premise is that "public interest" must outweigh the protection of the suspect's human rights. In fact, last year, Kang Hoon (nickname "Buda"), an accomplice in the socially outraging "Telegram Doctor's Room" case, filed a lawsuit requesting cancellation of the disclosure order, but it was rejected. The court ruled that "the public interest in information overwhelmingly outweighs Kang Hoon's honor and private interests, including his future as a minor."

Calls for Improvement: "What if they hide their face or change their name?"

However, as seen in the cases of Ko Yoo-jeong and Baek Gwang-seok, the fact that there is no effective way to deal with suspects hiding their faces is considered an area needing improvement. The police's discussion of releasing so-called "mugshots" is related to this issue. However, it is expected that releasing mugshots will be difficult under current law. The Ministry of Justice reportedly responded at the end of last year to the police's request for an official interpretation on mugshot disclosure, stating that "it cannot be done without the suspect's consent."

Goo Yu-jeong being transported with her face covered. [Image source=Yonhap News]

Accordingly, the police received an official interpretation from the Ministry of the Interior and Safety that releasing ID card photos does not violate personal information regulations, and thus disclose ID card photos when deciding on personal information disclosure. However, revising or supplementing related regulations is expected to take a considerable amount of time.

Concerns have also been raised that disclosed criminals may change their names in the future. In response, Rep. Lim Ho-seon of the Democratic Party, a former police officer, proposed an amendment to the Special Violent Crimes Act on the 29th to block name change applications by criminals whose personal information has been disclosed, including Jo Doo-soon. The amendment allows courts to reject name change applications from individuals whose guilty verdicts have been finalized and whose personal information has been disclosed.

Rep. Lim explained, "The suspect personal information disclosure system is designed to protect the public from violent crimes by preventing recidivism through disclosing the identities of suspects who caused great social shock. To preserve the purpose of this system, grounds must be established to deny criminals' name change applications."

'Inconsistent' Personal Information Disclosure... Ongoing Legal Controversies

The police decide whether to disclose suspects' personal information through the Personal Information Disclosure Review Committees of each city and provincial police agency. The committee comprehensively reviews the crime method, degree of damage, evidence of the crime, and public interest as specified in the Special Violent Crimes Act. External members such as doctors, legal professionals, educators, and journalists also participate.

However, the qualifications and requirements for committee members are not specified in law. They are not stipulated in the Special Violent Crimes Act, nor in presidential decrees, ministerial ordinances, or even police regulations, and are operated only by internal guidelines, leading to criticism that clear standards are lacking. There are concerns that depending on the composition of the committee in each city or province, disclosure decisions may be influenced by the "social atmosphere" surrounding specific cases.

In May, the daughter of the victim in the 'Bundang Taxi Driver Murder Case' posted a petition on the Blue House National Petition site demanding the disclosure of the suspect's identity. In this case, the suspect's identity was ultimately not disclosed.

There are also opinions that appropriate defense rights should be guaranteed during personal information disclosure. The National Human Rights Commission partially accepted a complaint filed by Kim Da-woon (36), who murdered the parents of "stock millionaire" Lee Hee-jin (35), recommending the police chief to revise regulations to guarantee defense rights by providing suspects subject to disclosure with opportunities to present opinions and submit materials, minimizing infringement of personality rights and personal information self-determination rights.

There are even voices calling for a complete review of the current personal information disclosure system. The Constitutional Court's Constitutional Research Institute published a report in March this year titled "A Constitutional Study on the Suspect Personal Information Disclosure System," warning against the all-encompassing use of the disclosure system and urging a constitutional re-examination of the system.

The report stated, "Whenever socially notable violent crimes are reported, discussions arise about expanding the scope of crimes or information subject to disclosure, but this distorts the nature of crime and hinders fundamental solutions for prevention." It added, "The entire society should reconsider whether the suspect personal information disclosure system is constitutionally acceptable and re-recognize the risks it may cause."