If a Criminal Opposes, Can't Their Personal Information Be Disclosed? Looking at Past Cases [News SeolCham]

Suspension of Personal Information Disclosure... Rights vs. Excessive Defense Rights
Telegram 'Moksa Room' Leader Files for Suspension... Court Dismisses
2020 Nth Room Purchaser's Personal Information Disclosure Fails
Criticism Mounts Over "Inconsistent" Police Criteria for Disclosure

Editor's Note'Seolcham' is a newly coined term meaning to refer to detailed explanations. In [News Seolcham], we aim to pinpoint and explain in more detail the parts of the news that require fact-checking or further explanation.

The Personal Information Disclosure Act has become controversial. The prosecution and police can disclose the personal information of suspects considering the brutality of the crime and the severity of the damage, but if the individual objects and takes legal action, the disclosure can be postponed or fail. Some argue that if criminals oppose the disclosure of their personal information, it not only undermines the purpose of the law for the public's right to know and public interest but also grants excessive defense rights to those who committed crimes brutal enough to warrant disclosure.

The police hold a Personal Information Disclosure Review Committee to comprehensively consider the severity and brutality of the crime committed by the suspect, the extent of the damage, and the public interest to decide whether to disclose personal information. If disclosure is decided, the suspect can file a provisional injunction to temporarily postpone the disclosure decision and take legal action during the postponement period to prevent the disclosure.

Most recently, the disclosure of personal information of Kim, the ringleader of an organization that sexually exploited 234 people over about five years on Telegram, almost failed. On the 22nd of last month, the police held a Personal Information Disclosure Review Committee and decided to disclose Kim's personal information, but he opposed this and applied for a suspension of execution, delaying the disclosure. Later, the court dismissed this, and Kim's name, age, face, and other personal information are scheduled to be disclosed from 9 a.m. on the 8th until March 10, for about a month.

Kim, who used the nickname 'Moksa' (Pastor), was investigated to have formed a vigilante group in May 2020 and sexually exploited or sexually assaulted 234 men and women through making sexual exploitation materials, threats, and psychological domination until January this year. Among the victims, 159 were minors.

Mr. A, the ringleader of a cyber sexual violence criminal group self-called "Vigilante" that produced and distributed sexual exploitation materials using Telegram, is being transferred to the prosecution on the morning of the 24th of last month at Seongdong Police Station in Seongdong-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

There are other cases opposing personal information disclosure. Yang Gwang-jun (38), an active-duty officer who killed a female military colleague and brutally mutilated the corpse before abandoning it by the North Han River in Hwacheon-gun, Gangwon Province, also opposed the decision to disclose his personal information and filed a provisional injunction. Later, the court dismissed Yang's injunction, stating that "(the applicant) has no risk of irreparable harm and there is no urgent need to prevent such harm," and his personal information was disclosed.

There are also cases where the court accepted the provisional injunction. In July 2020, the police decided to disclose the personal information of a man in his 30s, Mr. A, who purchased child and adolescent sexual exploitation materials from the Telegram 'Nth Room,' but the court accepted the applicant's suspension of execution provisional injunction, preventing the disclosure.

Mr. A was arrested on charges including purchasing sexual exploitation materials from Shin Mo (32), who inherited the Nth Room from Moon Hyung-wook (24). He was also charged with illegally filming adults from September 2014 to last March and producing sexual exploitation materials or committing sexual crimes against eight children and adolescents.

However, at that time, the court explained the reason for acceptance, saying, "Considering the provisional nature of the suspension of execution, it is difficult at this stage to see an urgent public interest need for immediate disclosure of personal information or to confirm the scope of the personal information to be disclosed," and "Personal information disclosure before the final judgment should be interpreted and applied strictly."

There are also criticisms that the police's criteria for deciding on personal information disclosure are unfair. The police's decisions are inconsistent in similar cases, so the criteria for personal information disclosure need to be more specific. In August last year, the personal information of Choi Seong-woo (28), who randomly assaulted and killed a 70-year-old resident he happened to meet in a smoking area of an apartment in Jungnang-gu, Seoul, was disclosed. At that time, the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office decided to disclose personal information, stating, "The brutality of the crime method, the serious damage, and the public interest are all satisfied."

However, earlier in July of the same year, the personal information of Baek Mo (37), who brutally murdered a 40-year-old resident who came out to smoke near an apartment in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, with a Japanese sword, was not disclosed. The police and Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office in charge of the case refused to disclose personal information, citing concerns that "mental illness is suspected, so the preventive effect is low, and there may be secondary harm to the victim's family."