Suspect with 'Identity Disclosure Decision' Cannot Cover Face When Transferred to Prosecution... Police Guidelines Revised

Suspect's Current Appearance Revealed
Unable to Cover Face Even While Moving
National Assembly Postpones Vote on Mugshot Mandate Bill

The police have moved to expand the system for disclosing personal information of violent criminals. The current appearances of suspects will be made public, and they will not be allowed to cover their faces while being transported. However, the mandatory use of 'mugshots' (photographs recording the appearance of criminals), a matter of public interest, was postponed in the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee (Law Committee).

Choi Won-jong (left) and Joseon refused to have their mugshots taken and disclosed.
[Photo by Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency]

On the afternoon of the 18th, the National Police Commission approved the original draft of the revised guidelines for disclosing suspects' faces and other personal information at a regular meeting. The improvements include allowing the release of photos and videos obtained during investigations of suspects whose personal information disclosure has been decided, as well as faces naturally exposed while being transported between police stations, and prohibiting suspects from covering their faces with hats, masks, etc. Additionally, written notification was made mandatory alongside the existing verbal notification when a decision to disclose personal information is made.

However, the revised bill mandating mugshots and other provisions was not processed by the Law Committee that day. The Law Committee initially planned to pass the bill expanding the scope of crimes subject to personal information disclosure and mandating mugshots at the plenary session that day, and then handle it at the plenary session on the 21st. However, the vote was postponed as members of the Democratic Party of Korea did not attend the meeting. The bill requires that photos taken by investigative agencies within 30 days from the date of the personal information disclosure decision for serious criminals be made public, with compulsory photography allowed if necessary. The scope of crimes subject to personal information disclosure is expanded to include not only specific violent crimes and sexual offenses but also treason, foreign exchange crimes, organized crime groups, explosives, arson of inhabited buildings, certain offenses of injury and assault, sexual crimes against children and adolescents, and drug-related crimes. The grace period for suspects to file objections after being notified of the personal information disclosure decision is set at five days. The enforcement date was moved forward from six months after promulgation to three months after.

As incidents of violent attacks with weapons continue to occur, public opinion strongly favors expanding the disclosure of suspects' personal information. According to a recent survey conducted by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, 96.3% (7,196 out of 7,474 respondents) supported expanding personal information disclosure. Regarding the release of mugshots showing the current appearance of criminals, 95.5% (7,134 respondents) agreed. Experts have positively evaluated the expansion of the personal information disclosure system and the push for mandatory mugshots. Oh Yoon-sung, a professor in the Department of Police Administration at Soonchunhyang University, said, “The mandatory disclosure of personal information should have been implemented earlier, but it is late now. Ultimately, it was created under pressure from public opinion and the tears of victims' families.” Lee Woong-hyuk, a professor in the Department of Police Science at Konkuk University, said, “Mandatory disclosure of personal information for violent criminals aligns with judicial justice and satisfies the public’s right to know. It can also serve as a deterrent against crime.”