Constitutional Court Reviewing Constitutionality of Suspect Identity Disclosure Provision

Previous Constitutional Complaints Dismissed Twice by the Court
This Time, Unconstitutionality Review Requested by the Judiciary

Amid ongoing discussions about expanding the disclosure of criminal suspects' identities in the wake of incidents such as the so-called "Busan Roundhouse Kick" case, it has been confirmed that the Constitutional Court is currently reviewing the constitutionality of the system for disclosing the identities of suspects in sex crime cases.

According to the legal community on June 22, the Constitutional Court has been deliberating since November of last year on a request for a constitutional review submitted by the Administrative Division 1 of the Chuncheon Panel of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Hwang Seungtae), which asked the court to determine whether Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes is unconstitutional.

This provision stipulates that "prosecutors or judicial police officers may disclose information such as the face, name, and age of a suspect in a sexual crime if there is sufficient evidence to believe that the suspect committed the crime and if it is necessary solely for the public interest."

Previously, individuals such as Jang Daeho, whose identity was disclosed in the "Han River Torso Case," filed two constitutional complaints against this provision, but the Constitutional Court dismissed both cases. However, the current case under review carries more weight, as it was referred for constitutional review by a court after direct legal examination.

For this reason, there are expectations that the Constitutional Court will issue its first substantive ruling on the constitutionality of the system for disclosing suspects' personal information.

The Administrative Division 1 of the Chuncheon Panel of the Seoul High Court found that the provision in question potentially violates constitutionally protected basic rights such as the right to personal dignity and the right to informational self-determination, as well as the principle of presumption of innocence and the principle of minimal infringement.

The court also pointed out that the scope of disclosure is too broad and vague, that there are no regulations regarding the period and method of disclosure, and that there are no safeguards such as hearing or notification procedures to prevent abuse.

Additionally, the court criticized the suspect identity disclosure system as being excessively inadequate compared to provisions in the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse, which allows the disclosure of a convicted defendant's identity by court order. The Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles from Sexual Abuse specifies various restrictions in law, such as the scope and period of disclosure, and requires judicial review before disclosure.

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