Background
Our client runs an online video channel. In June 2024, someone posted a comment on one of her videos sexually disparaging her body. She filed a complaint for insult and obscene communication against the commenter, known only by a nickname. Law Firm Changchun represented her in that complaint.
In June 2025, the police closed the case without referral, finding no offense. Changchun promptly requested the suspect's interrogation record, but the police chief refused, citing interference with investigations and privacy.
What Was at Stake
The Official Information Disclosure Act allows an agency to withhold information that would seriously hamper investigations, as well as personal information that may infringe privacy. Under case law, the investigation ground requires a high probability of direct and concrete harm to police work.
How Changchun Helped
Changchun sued for disclosure of the record excluding the suspect's name, resident registration number, contact details and address. The court accepted the following points:
The record was an excuse, not an investigative technique. It contained the suspect's explanation of his conduct and revealed no investigative methods.
Without identifiers, the privacy risk was low. The requested version had the suspect's identifying details removed.
The client needed it to protect her rights. The comment was undeniably posted, so the client had a legitimate need to understand how and why it was written in order to consider further legal action. Part of the statement already appeared in the police closing decision.
Outcome
In January 2026, the first-instance court revoked the refusal for everything except identifying details, granting the claim in full, and ordered the police chief to bear the costs.
Even when an online abuse complaint is closed without referral, the victim can learn how the suspect explained himself and prepare the next step. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.)