The Blind Spot of Private Punishment···The Risk of Information Leaks That Reduce Victims to Suspects

The recent case in which the victim of the Miryang gang sexual assault was booked on suspicion of providing the perpetrators' personal information to a YouTuber poses a heavy question to our society. This is because it shows the reality that so-called 'private punishment,' carried out in online space based on public outrage, can paradoxically reduce a crime victim once again to the status of a suspect.

Private punishment always carries the risk of being punished, depending on the facts and methods. For example, even if the victim obtained a court judgment through a lawful procedure, the situation does not change. The act of handing over personal information to a third party such as a YouTuber to have it disclosed to an unspecified multitude may also constitute a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, depending on the provider's status or the information. Also, the act of identifying and exposing another person's personal details online may be punished as defamation under Article 70 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization. Even if there is a public-interest purpose, if the method—such as the disclosure of personal information—is excessive, one may be punished on grounds of a defamatory purpose or the denial of a justifiable act. It is likely to be judged that the purpose of defamation and the intent to assist for-profit purposes are greater than the public interest.

The reason severe punishment is instead imposed on private punishment is the uncontrollability of information leaks. In fact, secondary harm in which a third party is subjected to a witch hunt because the personal details of someone with the same name as the perpetrator, or of a bystander unrelated to the case, were mistakenly leaked, occurs not infrequently. Once false information spreads online, it cannot be recovered. In this case, the initial leaker can be subjected to a criminal complaint for defamation and punished, not only by the perpetrator but also by the innocent third party who suffered unjust harm. In addition, one is placed in the judicial risk of even facing a claim for damages arising from a tort.

Attorney Kim Hyun-su of Daeryun LLC said, "The news of the Miryang case victim being booked is a regrettable cross-section created by the collision between public outrage over the limits of the judicial system and strict positive law. Even if moral justification exists, it cannot become a shield that justifies a violation of positive law," adding, "True restoration of rights must be achieved strictly within a lawful framework. Rather than relying on private punishment such as exposure through a YouTuber, it is best to receive the assistance of a legal expert from the early stage of the case. Meticulously constructing a lawful pressure card that can deal a substantial legal blow to the perpetrator is the most realistic path for the victim to protect themselves and punish the perpetrator."

ENet News, Reporter Park Jung-woo (woo@enetnews.co.kr)

[Read the full article]
The Blind Spot of Private Punishment···The Risk of Information Leaks That Reduce Victims to Suspects (Go)