Yu Byung-ho, Former Secretary-General of the Board of Audit and Inspection, Loses Case
Court: “Issues Arise with Contacting Related Parties and Preparing Questions”, according to a judgment that has been made.
The court ruled that it was legitimate for the police to redact about 70% of the complaint document in response to the information disclosure request made by Yu Byung-ho, a member of the Board of Audit and Inspection and former Secretary-General.
On the 25th, according to the legal community, the 14th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chief Judge Lee Sang-deok) ruled against the plaintiff Yu, who had filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the information non-disclosure against the head of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency in March.
After the inauguration of President Lee Jae-myung, when power changed hands, the Board of Audit and Inspection conducted an internal investigation into whether Yu’s past performance was appropriate. During Yoon Seok-yeol’s administration, Yu had served as the Secretary-General of the Board of Audit and Inspection. Later, the Board accused Yu of improperly intervening in performance evaluations of civil servants ranked 4th grade or above, leading to the complaint to the police.
Lawyer A, who took up Yu’s case, requested disclosure of the complaint submitted by the Board of Audit and Inspection to the Seoul Police in preparation for the investigation. The Seoul Police provided a redacted copy with approximately 70% of the complaint redacted, citing concerns that full disclosure could hinder criminal investigations. Consequently, Yu filed an administrative lawsuit.
The court judged that the partial non-disclosure action by the Seoul Police was justified. The redacted parts of the complaint included details regarding Yu’s alleged charges, performance evaluation information of the subjects, and statements made during the internal investigation. The court ruled that these fell under “facts or personal information about individuals involved in the case, evidence methods” that are not subject to viewing or copying by the accused or their lawyer. It explained that, “Releasing investigation information in a case where investigation is still ongoing poses a significant risk of severely impairing the investigation agency’s duties.”
Moreover, it noted, “The redacted parts include matters that investigators will verify through questioning the plaintiff during future investigations.” The court emphasized that “the plaintiff can provide statements and exercise the right to defense during that process.” It also added, “If the redacted parts are disclosed during the early stages of investigation, it could lead to difficulties in the investigation such as the plaintiff preparing expected questions in advance or making prior contact with witnesses.”