The Republic of Korea implements a system to disclose the identity of violent crime suspects. Before the ruling on the recognition of guilt or innocence of violent crimes, the identity of the suspects of violent crimes is disclosed through the conditions and procedures set out by the act on special cases concerning the punishment of specific violent crimes. The Korean government should abolish the system in that it violates the spirit of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, contravenes the principle of due process and presumption of innocence, and produces additional victims in a way similar to guilt by association.

Firstly, the identity revelation of crime suspects is against the Constitution’s spirit. The key factor that dragged this system to the center of controversy is because it restricts an individual’s constitutional rights, especially portrait rights and the right to privacy. They can be limited in certain situations as Article 37(2)[1] of the Constitution addresses but even so, the infringement must act in accordance with the principle of proportionality, a system designed to protect citizen’s essential aspects of basic rights from being offended. The principle of proportionality includes: justification for the end, suitability of means, minimal harm, and the balance of legal interests. All of the said principles must be met when violation of personal rights occurs. In terms of justification, the expectation that the disclosure of criminal suspect’s identify shall realize social order and a better social welfare lacks in empirical evidence. Similarly, people’s right to know is a weak justification to reveal one’s identity to the public, albeit also being a constitutional right. The principle of suitability of means and minimal harm determines whether a system is the most effective means of achieving the purpose and imposes the least restrictions. That being said, the identity revelation of criminal suspects is an extreme measure that may fatally damage one’s character bus has been implemented without consideration of other means. This could practically be seen as exceeding the scope of minimal harm.[2] Therefore, the identity revelation of malicious criminal suspects must stop in that it failed to meet the principle of justification, suitability of means, and minimal harm when the intrinsic aspect of the system may damage one’s basic rights.

Secondly, the disclosure of malicious crime suspects can end up creating more innocent victims, for it overrides the presumption of innocence and the due process of law. Article 27(4) of the Constitution and Article 275-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates the presumption of innocence, which presumes the criminal defendant to be innocent before the ruling. Therefore, any announcement of investigation that proposes suspects as guilty, or the disclosure of the suspect’s identity, shall be seen as a violation of presumption of innocence because it is a substantial infringement of one’s personal rights.[3] It is the judicial power which has the sole authority to determine whether or not the criminal elements are met, but the revelation of the suspect’s identity system practically allows the police and the prosecutor to practice the same authority as the judge. This system has the potential to critically undermine legal stability. There is, in fact, a case in South Korea where one’s personal rights were ravaged as in the manner above. In 2006, the name of the suspect for arson and murder was revealed during an investigation, but he turned out not to be guilty.[4] He went through extreme mental suffering from being accused of the crime, but no compensation was made. Furthermore, even if there are procedures to rescue the victim after his or her identity is released to the public, it is a practical claim to say that the due process has been disregarded as the recovery from the infringed personal rights is extremely difficult.[5] As such, the disclosure of malicious crime suspects must stop as it neglects the presumption of innocence and due process, posing a potential to induce innocent victims.

Thirdly, identity revelation of malicious crime suspects can technically evoke the effect of the guilt of association. Article 13(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea clearly states that the nation prohibits guilt of association. However, there is a convention that the perpetrator’s family or relatives must also be held responsible for the committed crime when its degree of punishment or responsibility is lower that the society’s expectation, especially in Korea where the sense of community is so strong. In 2016, after the identity of the killer of “Daebudo Murder”[6] went viral, some netizens doxed the perpetrator’s family and acquaintances. The office of investigation of Ansan Danwon Police Station announced on 9 May, 2016 that the police will be charging libel or defamation of character for trolls who left malicious comments or revealed the real names of the perpetrator’s relatives by accessing the perpetrator’s blogs and social media.[7] Moreover, regarding Koh Yu-jeong, the vicious murderer of her ex-husband, the firm "JejuAsan Rent-a-car" was boycotted on the online community and social media because the firm and the company run by Mrs. Koh's father were closely located. In regard to such happening, Yoon In-jin, a sociology professor at Korea University, identifies such phenomenon of holding the suspect's family accountable as “the new collective punishment.” “[And] it is a phenomenon that appears socially and emotionally rather [than] legally… In the East, where Confucianism is strong, such as Korea, there is a tendency to widely understand an individual’s behavior by linking it to a related group or culture,” he explained.[8] Furthermore, in Korea, where the Internet and social media are exceptionally developed, its impact is clearly non-negligible. Thus, the disclosure of the suspect's identity should be abolished because it can call for a collective punishment for people around the perpetrator.

The government should guarantee the human rights and basic rights of the people as written in the Constitution. Therefore, many legal principles and steps exist to guarantee one’s basic human rights to the fullest. Any system or regulation that does not follow such principle shall be abolished. In this sense, identity revelation of malicious crime suspects must not continue because it violates not only the anti-over restriction principle but the presumption of innocence and the due process of law.

Those who support identity revelation of malicious crime suspects claim that the system helps criminal investigations in that it is easy to obtain witnesses, prevent crimes by inducing psychological coercion, and guarantees the right to know. On the other hand, the opposition claims that the system is against the Constitution, which includes due process of law and the presumption of innocence. Specifically, the system overrides the due process in that there is no practical method to remedy the innocent victim that could arise, technically backing the guilt of association. The South Korean government has implemented many anti-crime systems – identity revelation of malicious crime being one of them – for the greater public interest, protection of the citizens, and the prevention of related crimes, but most importantly, our society must move towards to reducing malicious crimes itself before anything else.