Background
In January 2021, while playing an online game, our client received abusive messages from another player insulting his family and filed a criminal complaint for insult. In June 2022, the prosecution closed the case for insufficient evidence, citing, among other reasons, the suspect's claim that he had blocked our client's chat and never saw the message identifying him.
To learn what the suspect had told investigators, our client requested disclosure of the suspect's interrogation record, excluding personal data such as resident registration numbers and addresses. The prosecution refused.
What Was at Stake
The prosecution relied on internal rules on investigation procedure and record keeping. In court, it added grounds under the Official Information Disclosure Act, arguing that disclosure could harm privacy or the protection of life, body, or property.
How Changchun Helped
The court accepted the following arguments made on our client's behalf by Law Firm Changchun.
Internal rules cannot justify non-disclosure. The prosecution's rules were merely internal administrative guidelines and could not create grounds to withhold information.
Personal data had already been excluded. The request had left out identifying information from the start.
Only the circumstances of the incident remained. After reviewing the record in camera, the court found that it described only how and why the suspect wrote the messages, raising no privacy concerns.
Outcome
In April 2023, the first-instance court revoked the prosecution's refusal to allow inspection and copying and ordered the prosecution to bear the litigation costs.
A closed investigation does not automatically shield a suspect's statements once personal data is removed. A narrowly framed request can open the way for a complainant to see the case record. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.)