On February 28, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) recommended that the mayor of Cheongju City admonish the gu office special judicial police officers for failing to use the proper report form and for seeking personal information from a suspect which was irrelevant to his offense when questioning him and putting his confession on record. This recommendation is made in response to an August 2006 complaint filed by Kim (male, 36) which states, “When producing a suspect examination record, the special judicial police officers of a gu office violated the suspect’s privacy by requesting personal information on education, property, monthly income, and family, etc. that was irrelevant to the alleged violation of the Road Act and the Road Traffic Act.”
Based on the findings by the Commission, the form used by the gu office special judicial police officers in question was the form stipulated by the Working Regulations for Judicial Police Management, which are no longer operative. According to the form provided in Subparagraph 4, Article 85 of the superseding “Working Regulations for Special Judicial Police
Management” (April 26, 2004), a judicial police officer is required to inquire as to a suspect’s name, resident registration number, occupation, permanent domicile, abode, criminal record, relevant measures taken by the prosecution, citation of merit and pension, and military service only.
Against this backdrop, the NHRCK determined that producing a suspect examination record by seeking unnecessary personal information such as details on his education, career, family, property and monthly income, religion, political party or social group affiliation, and health condition constituted a violation of the principle of due process under Article 12 of the Constitution and the freedom of privacy under Article 17 of the Constitution as such information is irrelevant to his offense and cannot be deemed as reference material for assessment of culpability .
The S-gu office of Cheongju responded that the complainant’s claims of defamation or infringement of privacy were hardly plausible because its interrogation had been conducted in a closed compartment to prevent any outsiders or employees from hearing remarks made when producing the suspect’s examination record.
The Commission judged that it was appropriate to limit the questioning of a suspect to the minimum level necessary for investigation of an offense and the state’s exercise of rights to impose a penalty, considering that (i) it would be desirable to seek only necessary information including specific personal details on education, property, and family, from each suspect in the interrogation process, only to the extent that it is necessary as reference material for a prosecutor’s imposition of a penalty or assessment of culpability; and (ii) core factors in a prosecutor’s imposition of a penalty and assessment of culpability lie in the substantive truth of an offense, investigation of a suspect’s background merely produces reference material, and the type of religious group, political party, or social group with which a suspect is affiliated is, in particular, rarely a factor in a prosecutor’s imposition of a penalty and assessment of culpability.
The Commission accordingly recommended the mayor of Cheongju City admonish the respondents to prevent recurrence of any similar case.
