Supreme Court Rules Intercop's Refusal to Submit List Not Guilty... Not Subject to Epidemiological Investigation

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Yeongnam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Ju Cheol-in] The Supreme Court has ruled that refusing to submit a list requested by local governments after the outbreak of COVID-19 does not constitute a violation of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. The ruling states that the quarantine authorities' demand for data submission does not fall under the 'epidemiological investigation' as defined by the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheol-sang) on the 17th overturned the original verdict that sentenced A, the manager of the BTJ Yeolbang Center in Sangju, Gyeongbuk, and B, an executive, who were indicted for violating the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, to one year imprisonment and a fine of 3 million won respectively, and remanded the case to the Daegu District Court.

Intercop held an event at the BTJ Yeolbang Center from November 27 to 28, 2020. Intercop was prosecuted for refusing the Sangju city quarantine authorities' request to submit the list of center visitors and facility workers during the event period.

The legal issue was whether their actions could be considered as 'refusal of epidemiological investigation' prohibited by the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. The first and second trials ruled them guilty.

However, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts did not conduct sufficient necessary deliberation. The Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act defines the activities of quarantine authorities, such as identifying the scale of infectious disease patients, tracing infection sources, and determining causes of adverse reactions after vaccination, as 'epidemiological investigations.'

The Supreme Court pointed out that for the crime of refusing an epidemiological investigation under the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act to be established, it must be premised that an 'epidemiological investigation' as defined by the law was conducted. However, the lower courts sentenced guilty without confirming whether Sangju city's request for the event participants' list met the requirements regarding the subject, timing, content, and method of the epidemiological investigation as stipulated in the enforcement decree.

A Supreme Court official explained, "This is the first ruling to clarify that the scope of epidemiological investigation means a lawful 'epidemiological investigation' that meets the requirements of the enforcement decree of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act, and that this must be strictly judged."

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