Cannot Disclose Party Affiliation or Personal Information... Lee Jae-myung's Assailant Remains Confidential [What Do You Think]

Lack of Transparency and Fairness in Investigations
Difficulty in Identifying Political Terror Reference Groups

Party Affiliation and Personal Information Disclosure Entangled in Partisan Logic
Argument That 'Crime Reconstruction' Becomes Difficult

Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, was attacked with a weapon on the morning of the 2nd at Gadeokdo, Busan. The photo shows the suspect (a man in his 60s) who attacked Lee Jae-myung.

Controversy is growing as the personal information and party affiliation of Kim, who attacked Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, have both been decided to remain undisclosed. Due to the nature of ‘political terrorism,’ it is impossible to properly reveal the motive for the crime without disclosing party affiliation, and critics argue that withholding information actually spreads indiscriminate conspiracy theories and fake news. On the other hand, there is also a defense that if the suspect’s personal information and party affiliation are disclosed, the police may not be able to conduct a proper investigation due to being caught up in sharp factional logic and political battles.

On the 9th, the Busan Metropolitan Police Agency decided at the Personal Information Disclosure Deliberation Committee not to disclose the personal information such as the face and name of Kim (67), who is charged with attempted murder, just like his party affiliation. The police cited Articles 24 and 58 of the Political Parties Act as the basis for not disclosing party affiliation.

Many Cases of Extreme Political Terrorism Worldwide... "Non-disclosure of Personal Info and Party Affiliation Is Unprecedented"

Experts point out that it is unprecedented not to disclose the affiliation of the assailant in a ‘political terrorism’ case. Terrorism occurs worldwide for political, religious, or ideological reasons such as Islamic extremism or far-right extremism, and it is unusual for investigative agencies not to reveal the suspect’s affiliation.

Professor Lee Woong-hyuk of Konkuk University’s Department of Police Science said in a phone interview with this paper, “If you approach it only as attempted murder, there is evidence at the scene, confessions, and warrants, so it is a very easy case,” adding, “The ‘reference group’ of a political terrorist and the right of the public to know mean that personal information and party affiliation are central to the case and should be transparently disclosed.” Professor Lee said the essence of this case lies in Kim’s ‘motivation for forming political beliefs’ and the ‘circumstances.’ He criticized, “The fact that a large special investigation team of 68 members was formed should be seen as an effort to clarify this, but keeping all information undisclosed can be interpreted as the police, a ‘neutral institution,’ making decisions like a political party.”

It is also pointed out that the provisions of the Political Parties Act cited by the police as grounds for ‘non-disclosure of party affiliation’ sufficiently justify the ‘justification of illegality.’ According to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes, if conditions such as cruelty or serious damage, sufficient evidence to believe a crime was committed, and the public’s right to know and public interest are met, the suspect’s face, name, age, etc., can be disclosed.

How to Explain Disclosure of Suspect Facts... Defense Argues Sharp Factional Logic Makes ‘Crime Reconstruction’ Difficult

Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Seung-won, a former judge, said in a phone interview with this paper, “The subject of the ‘Political Parties Act’ is the ‘individual,’ but regardless of that, there has always been briefing-style information disclosure by institutions to guarantee the public’s right to know,” citing the investigation briefings conducted for public interest during the Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil special prosecution.

Lawmaker Kim particularly questioned, “If the logic is that ‘the current law must be followed,’ how can the police’s frequent disclosure of suspect facts be explained?” The basis he cited includes Article 12 of the 2016 ‘Choi Soon-sil Special Prosecutor Act’ and provisions of the 2018 ‘Druking Special Prosecutor Act.’ These provisions state that “the special prosecutor or the special prosecutor’s assistant appointed by the special prosecutor may hold press briefings on the investigation process other than the suspect facts to guarantee the public’s right to know.”

However, there is also criticism that disclosing the suspect’s party affiliation amid intense factional conflicts ahead of the general election could fuel social discord and slow down the investigation. Professor Kwak Dae-kyung of Dongguk University’s Police and Judicial College said, “The police’s priority is the ‘reconstruction of the crime,’ which clarifies what happened during the preparation and execution of the crime, but if party affiliation or personal information is revealed first, it becomes much harder to ascertain the facts and proceed with the investigation,” adding, “The police may judge that it is better not to give such pretexts or excuses and try to conduct the investigation accordingly.”

Meanwhile, the police plan to announce the final investigation results regarding Kim, the assailant of Lee Jae-myung, around 1:30 p.m. today. The police will explain the overall investigation results related to Kim’s crime, including the planning and execution of the crime, the process of preparing the weapon, and tracking Lee’s schedule.

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