A YouTuber’s publication of the faces and names of the perpetrators of the so-called “Busan Kick” incident has sparked a debate about private sanctions for unauthorized dissemination of personal information. Apart from the public opinion that the perpetrators of heinous crimes should be brought to justice, such behavior is potentially criminally punishable as defamation. Experts have emphasized the need to make the legal system more effective.

On May 6, the face, name, age, occupation, place of birth, height and weight of A, the perpetrator of the ‘back-kick’ incident that occurred in Busan in May last year, were spread on various online communities and social networking services (SNS).

The YouTube channel ‘Caracula Detective Agency’ released the identity of A after interviewing the victim of the incident on May 2. The channel operator said, “If I disclose the identity of the perpetrator without following due process, I may be punished for defamation of character and subject to retaliation crimes.” However, the victim is actively seeking to disclose his identity, which the investigative agency is not doing.”

A video screen with the identifying information of the man responsible for the Busan spin kick posted by YouTuber Caracula. (Captured from YouTube by Caracula Detective Agency)
He also revealed photos of the perpetrator’s body type and tattoos, as well as his criminal record, which included convictions for special theft and robbery when he was a minor, and criminal records for robbery, injury, and rape. The YouTuber’s video, which revealed A’s identity, was viewed more than 5 million times. Soon, A’s social media accounts became known, and his latest Instagram post received more than 2,300 comments.

Mr. A was sentenced to 12 years in prison in the first trial and is currently being tried on appeal. The prosecution added a sexual assault charge to the original attempted murder charge and asked for 35 years in prison스포츠토토. “I petitioned the police department to disclose the identity of the perpetrator, but I was told that I was not authorized to do so because he was already a defendant on trial,” the victim claimed.

Under the Special Law on the Punishment of Certain Violent Crimes, investigative agencies can disclose a suspect’s identity, including face, name, and age, if all four requirements are met: the crime was committed in a brutal manner, serious harm was caused, and there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt.

In the case of Mr. A, the police did not disclose his identity during the investigation stage, and the prosecutor’s office stated that it was difficult to do so, so there was no legal way to disclose his identity.

Experts explain that Caracula’s actions could be punishable as defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act or defamation under the Criminal Code. However, the Criminal Code stipulates that factual defamation “shall not be punished if the act is a true fact and is solely in the public interest.” This means that it’s harder to prosecute if the public interest is greater.

YouTuber Caracula explains why he released the identity of the man who kicked him in Busan in his video (Captured by Caracula Detective Agency)

Recently, personal information about the suspects in controversial cases has been indiscriminately disclosed, and there is an ongoing social debate about whether it is right to punish them.

Koo Bon-chang, an activist who disclosed the identities of parents who do not pay child support on the site ‘People Who Settle Child Support’ (formerly known as Bad Parents), was sued for defamation under the Information and Communications Network Act by 29 child support non-payers whose identities were disclosed. The first trial court acquitted him, ruling that child support is a public matter directly related to a child’s right to live.

On the other hand, the second trial court ruled early last year that “although the issue of non-payment of child support is a matter of public interest, a distinction must be made between ‘the importance of child support bonds’ and ‘whether it is permissible to disclose personal information by a person or a private organization,'” and suspended the sentence of a fine of 1 million won. The court concluded that it is not easy to weigh the importance of child support obligations against the infringement of personal rights by disclosing personal information such as divorce status and unpaid child support.

Deferred adjudication is a system that suspends sentencing for a period of time for relatively minor offenses and allows a person to avoid serving a sentence if he or she completes the suspended period without any further incident. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

“I think the same is true for the kickback case,” said Kang Hyo-won, a lawyer at Sungin Law Firm, the legal representative of activist Koo Bon-chang. “The case itself is a serious criminal matter of public interest, but apart from that, the fact that it was disclosed by an individual rather than an investigative agency may violate the right to personality,” he said. “It depends on the disposition of the trial court,” he said.

“Currently, less than 50 of the approximately 37,000 violent crimes that are subject to public disclosure a year are disclosed,” said Dr. Seung Jae-hyun of the Korea Institute of Criminal Justice and Legal Policy, “and even then, the purpose of preventing recurrence of crimes and satisfying the right to know is not realized by disclosing only mugshots that may have been taken at any time.”

“The scope and manner of disclosure should be expanded at the suspect stage, or at a later stage in court against a first-time offender, in lieu of private sanctions.”