[The Indigo = Editor-in-Chief Lee Yong-seok]
In the future, the role of disability rights advocacy organizations, support centers for people with developmental disabilities, and organizations for the disabled to protect the rights and interests of people with disabilities who have been victims of abuse or crime is expected to increase.
On the 9th, major media outlets, including the Kyunghyang Shinmun, reported on the use of the 'designated accuser system' for the first time in history to punish the intellectually disabled woman A's brother-in-law B for obvious crimes, including stealing the husband's death insurance money.
The incident is a typical crime of stealing property between relatives targeting people with developmental disabilities such as intellectual disabilities. When his brother died, Mr. B received the death insurance money of 235 million won on behalf of his sister-in-law, Mr. A, and changed Mr. A's house into his own name. The Jeonbuk Disability Rights Advocacy Agency, which was aware of this crime, requested an investigation from the police in January of last year. When the investigation began, Mr. B submitted a non-punishment application to the police, requesting that the investigation be stopped immediately as it was an internal family matter. They advocated the so-called relative mourning ceremony, which exempts them from punishment for crimes committed between relatives as stipulated in Article 328 of the Criminal Act. In order to punish crimes between relatives, there had to be a complaint from Mr. A as it was a ‘crime of pro-crime’ in which the victim had to file a complaint directly, but since Mr. A personally signed a non-punishment application form, the case seemed to be concluded with ‘no right to prosecute’.
However, on the 24th of last month, Mr. B was indicted on charges of embezzlement, false entry in electronic records, and conspiracy. Prosecutor Jin Dong-hwa of Jeonju Prosecutor's Office, Jeongeup Branch, the prosecutor in charge, played a significant role until these results were obtained. First, Prosecutor Jin began a re-investigation to clearly confirm Mr. A’s ‘intent to punish’, who was unable to even recognize his own damage due to his intellectual disability even though the damage was clear, and finally obtained an answer from Mr. A that said, “I hope Mr. B, his brother-in-law, gets scolded.” After confirming the victim's intention to punish, Prosecutor Jin immediately set out to find the 'interested persons' defined in the 'designated accuser system'. Mr. C, the son of Mr. A, was considered, but since he had already withdrawn his intention to punish his uncle, there was a high probability that he received financial support from his uncle, Mr. B, and a local facility for the disabled was also excluded because it had a relationship with Mr. B. In the end, Prosecutor Jin applied for designation as a complainant with the Jeonbuk Disabled Persons' Rights Advocacy Agency, which had originally requested this case, as a 'interested party', and when the application for designation was approved, he had the Jeonbuk Human Rights Advocacy Agency appoint a public defender. In addition, the public defender was designated as the complainant, a formal complaint was submitted, and Mr. B was able to be sent to trial.
Regarding this case, lawyer Choi Bo-yoon of Daeryun Law Firm said, “In general crimes, a complaint is simply a clue to the investigation, but in pro-reporting crimes, a complaint is required for the case to proceed.” He added, “The ‘designated accuser system’ is a case in which a accuser is designated only upon the application of an ‘interested person’ in cases where ‘there is no one to file a complaint’ for pro-reporting crimes, and ‘in cases where there is no person with the right to file a complaint (relatives, etc.) as specified in the law, or for example, a legal representative such as the victim’s parents is the perpetrator. “It is possible to use it in some cases.” “However, there may be concerns about the scope of ‘interested persons,’ but it appears that it will be interpreted broadly, and in particular, in this case, as it has become a precedent for the disability rights advocacy organization, which is the reporting organization, to be an interested party, it seems that those who are required to report under Article 15 of the Developmental Disabilities Act or the Developmental Disabilities Support Center will also need to actively take action by establishing a response system for pro-reporting crimes.”
Although the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act has been revised and implemented in 2021 to stipulate that the Relative Funeral Ceremony will not be applied to crimes of abuse of persons with disabilities, the opinion is that active use of the ‘designated accuser system’ is necessary as crimes that occurred before the revision of the law are still subject to the crime of pro-reporting. In addition, through this case, organizations for the disabled, such as disability rights advocacy organizations, can apply for designation as plaintiffs as 'interested parties', so if related organizations or institutions take an active role, it is expected that a significant amount of damage relief will be provided to disabled people who have suffered from property extortion by relatives and whose legal rights were restricted due to being blocked by the Relative Funeral Service.
View full article - Crimes related to mourning relatives for people with developmental disabilities can now be punished through the ‘designated accuser system’
