Police Keep Perpetrator's Identity Confidential, But Online Circulates Personal Information [After Deadline]

Lee Jae-myung Assailant's Identity Kept Confidential
Decision Made but Flooded on Online Communities
Public's Right to Know and Public Interest
What Is the Practical Benefit of Revealing the Perpetrator's Face?
Ongoing Debate: Private Sanction or Public Contribution?

Editor's Note‘After Deadline’ delivers in-depth stories online that could not be covered in print. Moving beyond breaking news, straight reports, and brief articles that everyone remembers, it presents the background stories, issues and discussion points, pros and cons, along with various visual materials.

Assailant of Representative Lee Jae-myung Sent to Prosecution (Source=Yonhap News)

Although the police decided to keep the identity of Mr. Kim, who attacked Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, confidential, the New York Times (NYT) in the United States has revealed his real name, occupation, and other details, causing a stir. This has rendered the police’s decision to withhold the suspect’s identity meaningless and ineffective.

As of the 13th, many online communities and YouTube channels have been posting uncensored images of Mr. Kim’s face. These posts include unconfirmed details such as the attacker’s age, occupation, real name, political affiliation, and YouTube videos. The NYT also reported Mr. Kim’s identity without any mosaic blurring.

On the 3rd, the NYT published an article titled “Knife Attack on Opposition Leader Shocks Polarized South Korea,” disclosing all information about Mr. Kim, including his real name and appearance. The police held a committee meeting to decide on the disclosure of Mr. Kim’s identity on the 9th, but the NYT’s report was released the day after the incident, on the 3rd.

New York Times report capture

Current law restricts the disclosure of personal information of suspects in violent crimes such as murder, attempted murder, and sexual violence. Reasons for disclosure include ▲if the crime was brutal and the damage severe ▲if there is sufficient evidence to believe the suspect committed the crime ▲if it is necessary for the public interest, such as ensuring the public’s right to know. The police judged that Mr. Kim did not meet these criteria.

Because of this, there is criticism that the police’s standards for ‘identity disclosure’ are too strict and ineffective. Professor Lee Woong-hyuk of Konkuk University’s Department of Police Science said, “The current standards for identity disclosure do not align with international norms. Terrorist incidents are public matters, and the public’s right to know is natural. (The fact that undisclosed information is leaking online) is disconnected from reality and raises doubts about the effectiveness of the identity disclosure committee itself.”

There have been several cases where, even though the police did not officially disclose the identity of suspects, their identities or those of persons suspected of certain crimes were revealed through media reports, online communities, and YouTube. This is largely because people who filmed the scenes directly post photos and videos on social media.

In the ‘Busan Spinning Kick Incident’ last year, the perpetrator’s identity was revealed through a YouTube channel. The name and face of a woman accused of threatening the late actor Lee Seon-gyun circulated on communities and YouTube.

Busan Roundhouse Kick Incident CCTV Footage (Source=Yonhap News)

In 2020, the operator of the child and youth sexual exploitation site ‘Welcome to Video,’ Son Jung-woo, and the Nth Room case were exposed through the ‘Digital Prison.’ This included photos, real names, residences, occupations, and phone numbers of those labeled as heinous criminals. The Digital Prison stated its rationale as “We intend to comfort victims by disclosing suspects’ identities. Feeling limited by lenient punishments for Korea’s most vicious criminals, we disclose their personal information to subject them to social judgment.”

However, opinions differ on whether the disclosure of criminals’ identities is always necessary. Aside from the satisfaction of curiosity or the desire to “see their faces,” many cases do not achieve judicial justice, and disclosure by individuals rather than investigative agencies carries risks of defamation and misinformation. For example, although Son Jung-woo’s identity was posted on the Digital Prison for distributing 220,000 child sexual exploitation materials, he was sentenced to only one year and six months in prison, sparking controversy.

The Digital Prison appeared on the web in 2020 and then disappeared (Source: Namuwiki)

Experts’ opinions are divided. Professor Lee said, “‘Identity disclosure’ is a matter separate from sentencing and should be viewed differently from prosecution before trial,” adding, “Above all, since it is a public matter, disclosing the suspect’s identity is necessary from the perspective of crime deterrence.”

On the other hand, Professor Kwak Dae-kyung of Dongguk University’s Police and Judicial College said, “The police disclose suspects’ faces mainly in cases involving serial murder or sexual assault that pose a national threat, to prevent further harm or to uncover additional crimes not yet identified.” He added, “The identity disclosure system should be understood as a way to warn people to be cautious of individuals with such faces or to encourage additional reports or tips. The police judged that this case (the attack on Lee Jae-myung) does not fall into that category.”

Meanwhile, under current law, arbitrary disclosure of criminals’ identities by individuals is clearly illegal. Disclosure of suspects’ personal information is conducted only with majority approval from a committee composed of internal and external police members for violent or sexual crimes. If an individual discloses a suspect’s identity without following this procedure, they may be punished under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Information and Communications Network Act).