A South Korean court has ruled that police were justified in redacting roughly 70% of a criminal complaint filed against Yoo Byung-ho, a commissioner of the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI) and the agency's former secretary general, when responding to his information disclosure request.
According to legal sources Tuesday, the Seoul Administrative Court's 14th Administrative Division, presided over by Chief Judge Lee Sang-deok, ruled in March against Yoo in his lawsuit seeking to overturn the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's partial denial of his disclosure request.
After President Lee Jae-myung took office and political power changed hands, the BAI conducted an internal review of whether Yoo had appropriately carried out his duties in the past. Yoo served as secretary general of the BAI during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration. The BAI subsequently filed a complaint with police, alleging that Yoo had improperly intervened in the performance evaluations of public officials at Grade 4 and above.
Attorney A, who was retained to represent Yoo, filed an information disclosure request with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency for the complaint submitted by the BAI in order to prepare for the investigation. The police agency provided a copy with approximately 70% of the complaint redacted, citing concerns that full disclosure could hinder the criminal investigation. Yoo then filed an administrative lawsuit.
The court ruled that the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency's partial non-disclosure of the complaint was justified. The redacted portions included information on individuals subject to the performance evaluations linked to the allegations against Yoo, as well as statements gathered during the internal review.
"The redacted material falls under 'facts about case-related parties, personal information, or methods of evidence' that are excluded from inspection and copying by suspects and their counsel," the court said. "If investigative information is disclosed in a case where an investigation is currently underway, there is a significant risk of substantially impeding the investigative agency's performance of its duties."
The court added that "the redacted portions concern matters that investigators will question the plaintiff about during suspect interrogation in the upcoming investigative process," noting that "the plaintiff can make statements on the relevant contents and exercise his right of defense in that process."
"If the redacted portions were disclosed to Yoo's side at the early stages of the investigation, difficulties could arise in the investigation, such as preparing answers to anticipated questions in advance or making prior contact with witnesses," the court said.
