Court: "If No Risk to Interested Parties, Investigation Records Must Be Disclosed to Defendant"

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] A court ruling has been made that when a defendant in a criminal case requests disclosure of investigation records, access must be granted if there is no possibility of harm to related parties.

On the 24th, according to the legal community, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 1 (Presiding Judge An Jonghwa) ruled in favor of plaintiff A in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the decision to withhold information filed against the head of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office. The court stated, "The refusal to disclose information regarding the CCTV video recording of the witness interrogation among the investigation records provided to A by the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office is canceled."

Previously, A was prosecuted in a criminal trial in 2019 on charges of using Philopon with employee B at a business A operated. In September of the following year, A requested disclosure of the CCTV footage recorded during B's witness interrogation by the police. The footage contained not only B's face, who made statements unfavorable to A, but also the overall appearance of the participating investigators.

The prosecution denied A's request, citing that it fell under information exempt from disclosure under the former Information Disclosure Act. The prosecution based its refusal on Article 9, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the former Information Disclosure Act, which stipulates that "information recognized as likely to cause significant harm to the protection of citizens' life, body, or property if disclosed may not be disclosed." A filed an administrative lawsuit, expressing dissatisfaction with the prosecution's decision and its reasoning.

The court judged that the prosecution's refusal to disclose the requested information was unlawful. It found that the footage did not fall under the category of information exempt from disclosure under the former Information Disclosure Act. The court reasoned, "Since A already knows the faces of B and the participating investigators, it is difficult to see that disclosing the CCTV footage containing their images would cause any harm."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.