The Busan Round Kick Incident: Public Resentment and the Need for Revised Personal Disclosure Procedures

☞Subscribe to the Hankyoreh Newsletter H:730. Type ‘Hankyoreh 730’ in the search bar. With the ‘Busan round kick incident’ as an opportunity, President Yoon Seok-yeol ordered a plan to expand personal disclosure, and the ruling party also announced that it would discuss easing the personal disclosure standards and expanding the subject, so there is a high possibility that the bill will be revised sooner or later. With the possibility that the threshold for personal disclosure will be lowered due to public resentment as a driving force, it is pointed out that the specific disclosure procedure should be modified in terms of regulations that depend on police non-disclosure guidelines. Opinion is also raised that if the perpetrator is concerned about retaliation, it is more reasonable to set the stage of personal disclosure after the sentence is confirmed. Currently, the basis for the identity disclosure system at the suspect stage is largely the Special Act on the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes (Special Lecture Act) and the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (Sexual Violence Punishment Act). Accordingly, among violent crimes and sex crimes such as murder, murder of an ascendant, attempted rape and murder, and ‘brutality of the means of the crime’, ‘gravity of the damage’, and ‘sufficient evidence of the allegation’, the face, name and identity of the suspect are confirmed. Age can be disclosed. The problem is that identity disclosure is a serious matter that cannot be reversed once it is made, and unlike various warrant issuance procedures, specific identity disclosure procedures It’s being done according to police non-disclosure guidelines. It is difficult to ensure fairness and reliability. Usually, after the arrest warrant for a heinous criminal who is subject to personal disclosure is issued, the police hold a personal disclosure committee that includes external members to decide whether to disclose the identity and the scope of disclosure. At this time, the National Police Agency’s directive, ‘Guidelines for Disclosure of Suspects in Violent Crimes’, seems to be performing the internal reference point, but it is not disclosed to the outside world. Accordingly, it is pointed out that non-disclosure guidelines should be publicized through enforcement ordinances so that experts can participate and discuss. On the 14th, Kim Gwang-hyeon, a legislative investigator (attorney) at the National Assembly Legislative Research Office, said, “I think it is necessary to enact legislation, such as making enforcement decrees through delegation provisions, rather than leaving detailed standards specific to the brutality of crimes or public interests as non-disclosed guidelines.” “In order to think about ways to improve, such as putting weight on the same kind of criminal record, etc., what criteria are currently being discussed must be disclosed so that experts can think about improvement measures,” he said. In addition, it is pointed out that the disclosure of personal information is made by the decision of the Personal Information Disclosure Deliberation Committee, which is divided by the city and provincial police offices, and thus lacks consistency and fairness. This is because problems such as inconsistency in the review criteria may occur. Seung Jae-hyeon, a senior researcher at the Korea Institute for Criminal Justice Policy, pointed out that the National Police Agency needs to match the occupational groups of committee members and the criteria for gender ratio review in terms of fairness. did. Currently, the deliberation committee consists of 7 members, 3 inside the police and 4 outside experts. In fact, some point out that the police should add procedures related to identity disclosure and review the timing of identity disclosure. Kang Dong-wook, a professor at the Dongguk University School of Law, said, “The current deliberation committee is just a procedure to justify the police’s decision.” said. Professor Kang also said, “Requiring disclosure of personal information before conviction, whether as a suspect or as a defendant, is only an honor killing for an individual, and I do not believe it has any further effect.” It seems rather necessary to disclose the identity of the person around the time he is released from prison.” Reporter Yoon Yeon-jeong [email protected]