Prosecutors Refuse to Disclose Investigation Records... Court Rules They Must Be Released as They Do Not Affect Trial

Stock Picking Room Victims Request Disclosure of Investigation Reports from Prosecutors
Prosecutors Claim "Violation of Fair Trial Rights"... Court States "No Confidential Information That Should Be Exposed"

The court ruled in favor of the fraud victim, ordering the prosecution to disclose investigation reports and other documents.

The Seoul Administrative Court, Administrative Division 14 (Presiding Judge Song Gak-yeop) announced on the 19th that it ruled in favor of plaintiff A in a lawsuit filed against the head of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office, demanding the cancellation of the refusal to disclose information.

A claimed to have suffered illegal stock leading damages in September 2019 and filed a complaint with the prosecution against B and about 30 others. The prosecution only filed summary indictments against some of them, while others were either not prosecuted or had their prosecution suspended.

In response, A appealed the prosecution's decision and requested the disclosure of investigation reports, suspect interrogation records, and defense counsel opinions related to B and others.

The prosecution decided not to disclose the information, citing a provision of the Information Disclosure Act that allows withholding information related to ongoing trials and criminal investigations if disclosure would significantly hinder official duties or infringe on the defendant's right to a fair trial.

However, the court's judgment differed. The court found that the provision cited by the prosecution as grounds for non-disclosure did not apply to investigation reports to the extent that they would pose a risk of affecting future trials.

The court stated, "The prosecution did not specifically prove how the disclosure of the information requested by A would concretely affect the trial proceedings or outcomes, nor how it would cause difficulties in the performance of investigative duties."

Furthermore, the court ruled, "Even considering the content of the information requested by A, it does not appear to reveal special investigative methods or secrets that should not be exposed, nor does it pose a concrete risk of influencing the proceedings or outcomes of ongoing trials."