Prosecutors Lose Information Disclosure Lawsuit... Court Rules "Must Disclose If No Impact on Investigation or Trial"

A court ruling has stated that the prosecution must provide internal documents such as suspect interrogation records to criminal case complainants if there is no impact on investigations or trials.

According to the legal community on the 2nd, the Administrative Division 3 of the Seoul Administrative Court ruled in favor of Mr. A, a victim of stock fraud, in a lawsuit against the head of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office seeking cancellation of the refusal to disclose information. The court stated, "It is difficult to see that the disclosure of the information would hinder the duties of investigative agencies such as crime prevention or information gathering, or affect the trial proceedings or outcomes."

Seoul Administrative Court

In 2019, Mr. A was deceived by false and exaggerated advertisements by Company B, resulting in losses from paying membership fees and illegal stock investment advice. He filed a criminal complaint against the CEO and employees of Company B at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. Some victims, including Mr. A, filed civil lawsuits against the CEO and employees for damages due to fraud and other illegal acts, winning partial judgments.

In September 2022, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office decided not to prosecute the CEO and employees on charges of embezzlement and fraud, and transferred cases related to violations of the Capital Markets Act to the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office. The Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office filed summary indictments against some suspects, while others were either not prosecuted (no charges) or had prosecution suspended. Mr. A appealed to the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office the same year.

Alongside this, last year, Mr. A requested information disclosure from the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office for suspect interrogation records, investigation reports, and materials submitted by defense counsel related to Company B employees, excluding personal details such as resident registration numbers and occupations.

However, the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office decided not to disclose the information, stating, "Disclosure would significantly hinder the performance of duties or infringe on the defendant's right to a fair trial." After dismissing Mr. A's appeal, the case records were returned to the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office. Mr. A repeatedly requested information disclosure but was notified of non-disclosure decisions, leading him to file an administrative lawsuit.

Mr. A argued, "The requested materials do not contain personal confidential information and are necessary for victims of illegal acts to seek remedies." On the other hand, the prosecution countered, "Some of the information could affect ongoing criminal trials, and it reveals what aspects the investigative agency focuses on when determining the establishment of suspicion. There is a possibility that suspects might use this to evade legal sanctions."

The court ruled in favor of Mr. A. The court stated, "The prosecution's reasons for non-disclosure are mere vague concerns or possibilities," and added, "The requested investigation reports and suspect interrogation records pertain to cases already closed with non-prosecution or largely reflected in the non-prosecution decision documents already held by the plaintiff." Furthermore, "As a complainant in the criminal case, Mr. A has a vested interest in the proper handling of the case and thus has the necessity and right to know not only the results but also the specific process, grounds, and reasons for the case handling."

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