Background
Our client was the victim of online insults and filed a criminal complaint. In March 2022, prosecutors suspended the indictment on the condition that the offender complete an education program, meaning the offense was recognized but not brought to trial.
Acting as the client's complaint attorney, Changchun asked for a copy of the offender's interrogation record from the case file. In September 2022, the prosecutors' office refused. To obtain the record of the client's own complaint, Changchun filed an administrative suit to cancel the refusal under the Official Information Disclosure Act.
What Was at Stake
The Act allows agencies to withhold information whose disclosure would threaten personal privacy or significantly impair the protection of life, body, or property. The prosecutors argued that the entire record was personal information and, on appeal, added that disclosure could expose the offender to public criticism and harm.
How Changchun Helped
The court accepted the plaintiff's position.
The record described the offense, not private life. Apart from identifiers such as resident registration numbers, contact details, and criminal history, the record set out how and what the offender did to the victim, without revealing private matters of either party.
The victim's interest prevailed. The benefit to the victim's pursuit of remedies outweighed the interest protected by withholding.
The alleged risk of harm was unsupported. The appellate court considered the added ground but found no likelihood of harm, since the victim had never harmed or threatened the offender.
Outcome
In November 2023, the first-instance court cancelled the refusal except for personal identifiers and ordered the prosecutors' office to bear all litigation costs. The appellate court dismissed the prosecutors' appeal in August 2024, and the judgment became final in September 2024. Changchun then applied to fix approximately KRW 9.08 million in litigation costs.
Records of a closed investigation cannot be withheld in full merely because they contain personal information; insisting that only what truly must be redacted be redacted can give victims the records they need. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.)