The personal information of Choi Seong-woo, who fatally assaulted a neighbor in an apartment complex, has been disclosed. Courtesy of Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office

The Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office revealed on Sept. 12 the identity of Choi Seong-woo, 28, who is accused of fatally assaulting a resident in a smoking area of an apartment complex in Jungnang District, Seoul, on July 20. Choi, reportedly suffering from delusions, believed the victim posed a threat to him and his mother.

Ten days earlier, the Seoul Metropolitan Police confirmed that they would not disclose the identity of Baek, 37, the suspect in the katana murder case. Baek is accused of killing a neighbor with a 102-centimeter-long Japanese sword in an apartment complex in Eunpyeong District, Seoul, on July 29.

The police cited Baek's suspected mental illness and the potential for additional harm to the victim's family as reasons for withholding his personal information.

The differing decisions in these two cases, despite both involving brutal murders driven by delusions, have sparked confusion and controversy.

Both suspects committed violent, random murders of neighbors, yet the authorities handled their personal information disclosures very differently. This inconsistency has led to growing calls for clearer and more uniform standards for publicly disclosing suspect identities.

Since January, the Act on Public Disclosure of Personal Information of Major Criminal Offenders has been in force, an extension of a system introduced in 2010. This law broadened the types of crimes that qualify for disclosure, adding offenses like arson and drug crimes, alongside sexual and violent crimes. It also allows authorities to release mugshots of suspects without their consent.

Calls are growing for clearer, more uniform standards for public disclosures of suspects' identities. Gettyimagebank

Criteria for disclosure still vague

However, experts argue that the criteria for public disclosure remain vague, even after the legal revisions.

Under the law, three conditions must be met for a disclosure: the crime must be brutal and have caused serious harm, there must be sufficient evidence of the suspect's guilt, and public interest must justify the disclosure to ensure the public's right to know and prevent further offenses.

The problem, they say, lies in the subjective interpretation of terms like "sufficient evidence" and "public interest."

Nam Un-ho, a lawyer representing the family of the victim in the katana murder case, criticized the unclear standards, saying, "The existing ambiguous criteria for disclosures were simply carried over into the new system. The guidelines should consider the context of the arrest and the circumstances surrounding the crime."

He also pointed out the need to include the perspectives of victims' families when deciding whether to disclose information.

Another issue is the variation in how disclosure review committees are formed by different investigative agencies and regions, leading to inconsistent decisions.

Lee Woong-hyuk, a professor of police studies at Konkuk University, said, "Each investigative body, whether police or prosecution, has its own review committee, and the factors they prioritize when deciding on a disclosure can differ."

Jang Young-soo, a professor at Korea University's School of Law, suggested establishing a national-level unified review committee to ensure consistent and fair decisions across the country.

Despite the controversy, some experts advise patience, as the law is still relatively new.

Bae Sang-kyun, a researcher at the Korea Institute of Criminology and Justice, pointed out the practical difficulties in forming a single national committee, such as budget constraints, and emphasized the need to refine the system over time to improve consistency.

This article from the Hankook Ilbo, sister publication of The Korea Times, is translated by a generative AI system and edited by The Korea Times.