Background
Victims who file complaints for defamation, insult, obscenity through telecommunications media and similar offenses frequently request disclosure of investigation records, including suspect interrogation protocols, once the matter has been dealt with. Those records are essential for later remedies such as an application for adjudication or a civil damages claim. Yet investigating authorities repeatedly withhold them, invoking "investigation" (Information Disclosure Act art. 9(1)4) or "personal information" (subparagraph 6). Changchun has represented many complainants against such refusals.
The Issue — Breaking Through Repeated Refusals With a Consistent Legal Approach
The facts differ from case to case, but the logic of refusal is almost always the same. The key was therefore to press a consistent legal approach with precision: ▲ a narrow reading of the subparagraph 4 "investigation" exemption; ▲ partial disclosure as to personal information under subparagraph 6 (art. 14); and ▲ the complainant's interest in obtaining a remedy.
How Changchun Helped
Across many cases raising the same issues, Changchun consistently argues that ① the premise for non-disclosure has disappeared once the investigation has closed; ② personal information should be redacted while the substance is disclosed; and ③ a complainant has a legitimate interest in seeing the record of a case to which they are a party — responding to improper refusals on that basis.
Against the absurdity of "filing a complaint and never learning the outcome," Changchun conducts information disclosure litigation broadly, in defense of victims' right to know and their access to a remedy. (Outcomes may differ depending on the facts of each matter.)