Court: Refusal to disclose the judgment in Yoon's insurrection case was unlawful ... possibility of a constitutional complaint against a judicial decision

[Financial News] A court has ruled that it was unlawful to reject a request to disclose the first-instance written judgment identifying by name the defendants in former President Yoon Suk Yeol's case involving the ringleader of the insurrection. The ruling indicates that categorically excluding the application of the Official Information Disclosure Act solely because the Criminal Procedure Act contains no provisions for viewing or copying non-final judgments could violate the constitutional principle of proportionality.
The Seventh Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court, headed by Senior Presiding Judge Kang Woo-chan, ruled in favor of the plaintiff on Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) against the chief judge of the Seoul Central District Court, seeking to revoke the disposition denying the disclosure of information.
The panel noted, "The issue in this case is whether members of the general public are absolutely prohibited under the Official Information Disclosure Act from viewing or receiving copies of non-final criminal judgments under any circumstances."
In March, the Seoul Central District Court released the first-instance judgment in the case involving Yoon Suk Yeol and others as the ringleaders of the insurrection, but anonymized the defendants' names as 'Defendant E' and others. PSPD requested disclosure of the judgment identifying the defendants by name, but the Seoul Central District Court responded with a notice denying the request, stating, "The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning access to and copying of litigation documents and final judgments constitute 'special provisions in other laws' under the Official Information Disclosure Act, so the judgment is not subject to an information disclosure request."
In April, PSPD filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing that the names and positions of the defendants, who abused their authority in the course of their duties as public officials, should be disclosed in light of the public's right to know and the need to protect the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.
The panel rejected the Seoul Central District Court's reasoning for denying the request. It ruled, "Articles 35, 294-4, and 59-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act merely allow defendants, defense attorneys, and victims to access documents, or allow access to final judgments, under certain circumstances; they do not absolutely prohibit members of the general public from viewing or copying non-final judgments." The panel added, "This is merely a legislative gap in an area not governed by the Criminal Procedure Act and does not constitute grounds for excluding the Official Information Disclosure Act."
It continued, "If the application of the Official Information Disclosure Act itself is categorically excluded simply because a judgment is non-final, the result would be blanket nondisclosure without a specific review." The panel also pointed out, "An interpretation that completely blocks public access would be highly likely to violate the constitutional principle of proportionality."
In particular, it stressed, "If the courts overlook this constitutional perspective and routinely adopt such an interpretation, the matter could develop into an issue involving a constitutional complaint against a judicial decision concerning the courts' interpretation."
The panel ruled, "The disposition denying the disclosure of information issued by the defendant, the chief judge of the Seoul Central District Court, is hereby revoked." It added, "Once the judgment becomes final, the defendant must reconsider whether to disclose the information and the scope of disclosure based on the grounds for nondisclosure set out in the Official Information Disclosure Act and the possibility of partial disclosure."
[email protected] Lee Chang-hoon Reporter