On July 18^th, the Inha University sexual assault and death case[1] was in a heated controversy, because the Incheon Metropolitan Police decided not to disclose the identity of the suspect. According to Article 8-2 of the Act On Special Cases Concerning The Punishment Of Specific Violent Crimes, the Disclosure Commission, can disclose personal information (face, name, age, and etc.) of a suspect who meets four conditions[2]. Those who were outraged by the Inha University case independently searched for the suspect's information and disseminated it. However, the person who disseminated the personal information could be sued due to defamation of character. Last July, in YTN's "News Live", an attorney Park Seong-bae said, "This case will make people angry, and I understand those people’s sentiment, but even so, disclosing the identity of the suspect or victim can be a legal problem.“ In this regard, the opinion that the Identity Revelation of Malicious Crime's Suspect must be enforced because that satisfies the public interest and protects the right to know. Also, the other side of the opinion is that the identity revelation of a malicious crime’s suspect must stop because that causes various side effects such as harm to innocent citizens.

The “Identity of Revelation Malicious Crime's Suspect” is a system that discloses the personal information of a suspect if the crime meets the four requirements according to the decision of the Disclosure Commission. However, there are criticisms that the standard for disclosing the identity of the suspect is ambiguous. Regarding this, Professor of Kyonggi University Lee Soo-jeong said, “The biggest problem with the Identity Revelation of a Malicious Crime’s Suspect is that even more serious crimes are not disclosed unless the media pays attention to them, and the standards are vague.” In the recent Inha University sexual assault and death case, police decided not to publicize the identity of the suspect, which drew a lot of criticism. Disclosure of the suspect's identity helps in criminal investigation, can prevent new crimes, and has a positive effect in guaranteeing the public's right to know. Therefore, the Identity Revelation of Malicious Crime's Suspect must be enforced for all crimes that cause social controversy.

        First, the Identity Revelation of a Malicious Crime's Suspect helps the criminal investigations proceed well. If the suspect's personal information is disclosed, the police can investigate the crime more accurately by identifying the suspect's false claims or the suspect's characteristics. This is because citizens are able to report a lot of information related to the suspect. In fact, Jo Sung-ho, who planned the murder in the 2016 Deabudo Murder Case[3], claimed that he accidentally committed the crime. However, after Jo Sung-ho’s information was disclosed, many citizens reported that he went home with a weapon from his company, and that he inquired about the method of murder prior to the incident. Through this, the police were able to conclude that Jo Sung-ho had committed a premeditated crime. In addition, after the identity of the Choi Shin-jong, designated as a suspect in the serial murder case[4] that occurred in 2020 was revealed, people exposed testimonies that he bullied weak students when in school, and if he didn’t like someone would beat his juniors and seniors. In other words, many people have testified to the violence of the Choi Shin-jong. Thus people can report various information related to the suspect via disclosure of suspect’s identity and it will be helpful to accurately understanding the crime of the suspect.

          Second, the Identity Revelation of Malicious Crime's Suspect can prevent new crimes. When the public condemns criminals whose identities have been revealed, it can result in a decline in the criminal’s social honor and a psychological effect that reduces future criminals. In particular, online crimes such as hidden cameras and online fraud have the characteristic where the criminals remain anonymous, compared to revealing the identity of the victim. If the identity of the criminal is publicized, the potential perpetrators who plan online crimes can lose anonymity in online crimes. In June 2021, Dae-Gyung Kwack, a professor at Dongguk University, said, “Disclosure of identity is a system that is carried out in terms of informing criminals who have caused harm to society. From the perspective of those who are planning potential crimes, there is an expectation that it can have a psychological deterrent.” In addition, Seo Seung-hui, CEO of the Korea Cyber ​​Sexual Violence Response Center (KCSVRC), said, “When it is serious crime in that the number of victims and the amount of damage is significant, the identity of the suspect must be revealed, and the effect of crime prevention is great. Disclosure of the identity is not a criminal punishment, but a social punishment, which can reduce crime by threatening to reveal the hidden anonymity of the perpetrator.” Likewise, disclosure of the suspect's identity helps to prevent new crimes by influencing on the criminal psychologically that can stifle criminal attempts.

          Third, the Identity Revelation of Malicious Crime's Suspect can guarantee the public's right to know. The right to know is a concept based on the Constitution Of The Republic Of Korea, and it refers to the right of citizens to freely know information about political and social reality, or other such information. Criminals who have caused a great social scandal, such as sex crimes and murder cases, pose a great threat to many citizens. In fact, in March 2020, 13 million people signed Petitions to Blue House for disclosing the identity of the Nth Room case[5] perpetrator, and in June 2021, 530,000 people agreed to the Petitions to Blue House for disclosing the identity of the perpetrator of the dating violence case[6]. In addition, according to the survey for adults by Realmeter, a public opinion polling agency, about the disclosure of the identity of violent crime suspects in 2016, 87.4% of the total respondents supported the disclosure of the identity of the violent crime suspect. In this way, the public has a high interest in events that cause harm to society and asserts their right to know. In addition, information on suspects highly related to social issues, such as robberies and assault cases, is included in the public's right to know. According to the Act On Special Cases Concerning The Punishment Of Specific Violent Crimes, the identity of the suspect is disclosed when necessary for the public interest, such as guaranteeing the public’s right to know and preventing future similar crimes.

The current system to disclose the identity of a suspect does not fulfill the purpose of protecting the public interest and guaranteeing the public's right to know due to the ambiguous standards for the disclosure. Therefore, the current system should be changed from disclosing only when the requirements presented by the Disclosure Commission are met to disclosing the identity of all suspects who have caused great social harm.