Anonymous Judgments Like Encrypted Messages... "Too Excessive, Difficult to Read"

Judgment Name - Place Names A, B, C Represented as AA, AB, AC, etc.

[Photo by Beopryul Newspaper]

"I once happened to see a judgment I wrote that had been anonymized. Even though I wrote it, it was completely difficult to identify what it meant. I wondered whether it was anonymization or encryption."

This is the remark of a current chief judge who issued a ruling that became a so-called 'social issue.'

Any citizen of the Republic of Korea who browses judgments on the court's internet homepage often encounters such situations. There are continuous criticisms that the anonymization process is excessively carried out, making it impossible to tell who is who or what is what.

In contrast, the United States Supreme Court fully discloses judgments of decided cases free of charge through its homepage and the Government Publishing Office homepage. Although there is a difference in legal culture due to the jury system, anyone can view not only the names of the parties involved in each case but also the litigation records submitted to the court during the litigation process.

In the legal community, there are opinions that discussions are needed to expand the scope of disclosure beyond judgments to include indictments and other litigation records.

From AA to AZ... 'Encryption-like Anonymization'

When reading judgments, there are cases with one plaintiff and one defendant, but there are also cases with multiple plaintiffs and defendants. Cases involving many parties can be easily found.

When applying to view judgments on such cases through the court's internet homepage, anonymization is performed, and names or place names in the judgment are converted beyond A, B, C, D to AA, AB, AC, AD, and so on. Especially, not only personal names or company names, which have the greatest risk of privacy infringement, but also large-scale place names or proper nouns are often excessively anonymized. This is why many complain that reading judgments itself is a hardship.

Moreover, when an appeal is filed after the first trial judgment, if some of the multiple defendants do not appeal, a new anonymization process with a new sequence of A, B, C, D is carried out. In this case, the person referred to as Mr. C in the first and second trial anonymized judgments becomes different individuals.

Lee In-hwan (42, passed the bar exam 3rd class), a lawyer at Jeha Law Firm, said, "When I recently viewed a judgment related to game items, the value differed depending on the item, but since all were anonymized, it was unclear how to distinguish them." He added, "Special product names or items need to be distinguished to understand the meaning of the judgment, but since even those parts are anonymized, it was difficult to grasp the legal reasoning by reading the judgment." He continued, "While protecting personal information that needs to be protected, expanding the disclosure of judgments would also help in understanding legal reasoning."

Inside and Outside the Court: 'Consider Disclosure of Litigation Records'

A chief judge at the Seoul Central District Court said, "Sometimes it is hard to understand why a certain ruling was made just by looking at the judgment, but when you see the documents or litigation records, you understand immediately," adding, "If litigation records are disclosed when necessary, it would be possible to understand the judge's decision more clearly."

Lee Eun-jung (51, Judicial Research and Training Institute class 33), a lawyer at Dongin Law Firm, said, "In adult guardianship cases, it is impossible to view investigation reports, and in criminal cases, it is sometimes difficult to defend suspects because it is unclear on what grounds the prosecution and police requested warrants," adding, "Foreign arbitration awards detail the process clearly, making it possible to identify the issues precisely. Even if parts that risk privacy infringement are redacted, disclosure of litigation records is necessary."

The indictment, which remains opaque, is also raised as an issue. In February 2020, the Ministry of Justice, in response to the National Assembly's demand to submit the indictment related to the Blue House's alleged ordered investigation and election interference in Ulsan mayoral election, submitted only a brief summary of the indictment, contrary to previous practice. Since May 2005 during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, the Ministry of Justice had disclosed indictments of major cases submitted to the National Assembly, but suddenly switched to non-disclosure, causing controversy. At that time, Minister Choo Mi-ae pointed out, "The public's right to a public trial was infringed, and various fundamental rights in criminal procedures were violated." However, civic groups such as People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy strongly opposed the Ministry of Justice's non-disclosure of indictments.

Kim Young-gyu (58, class 24), a lawyer at Daeryuk Aju Law Firm, said, "In the case of arrest warrants, confidentiality during the investigation stage must be considered, so it can be viewed differently, but for indictments, the public's right to know may be greater in important cases," adding, "If indictments are disclosed, the prosecution may be more cautious when filing charges."

A lawyer in Seocho-dong said, "All trials are supposed to be public, and the facts of the charges are fully disclosed in the courtroom," adding, "It is incomprehensible to proceed in secrecy even for cases involving 'public figures' under the pretext of concerns about disclosure of suspect facts."

Legal Times Special Reporting Team = Park Su-yeon, Han Su-hyun, Lee Yong-kyung

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

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