Court Rules Yoon Suk Yeol's Coup Case Ruling Must Disclose Names

The court has ruled that the names and positions of individuals involved in the emergency martial law case against Yoon Suk Yeol must be disclosed.

On September 17, the 7th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court, led by Chief Judge Kang Woo-chan, ruled in favor of the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy in a lawsuit against the head of the Seoul Central District Court regarding the refusal to disclose information.

Earlier, on February 19, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Yoon to life imprisonment for his role as the leader of a coup and released a redacted version of the ruling. On February 27, the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy requested the full ruling with names through the judicial information disclosure portal.

However, the Seoul Central District Court denied the request, citing Article 6 of the regulations on providing rulings via email, which states that the court administration must redact personal information such as names, resident registration numbers, and addresses before providing documents in the requested format.

In response, the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy filed an administrative lawsuit on April 7, arguing that the refusal to disclose the ruling was illegal.

In the lawsuit, they contended that while Article 9, Section 1, Item 6 of the Information Disclosure Act allows for non-disclosure of information that could infringe on privacy, it does not permit the non-disclosure of the names and positions of public officials performing their duties.

They further argued that the individuals whose names were redacted were primarily public officials who had directly or indirectly participated in the coup, emphasizing that their identities should not be concealed.

The group also noted that even if there were non-public officials involved, disclosing their names is necessary for public interest, as this case pertains to an unprecedented coup in South Korean history.

They added that those named in the ruling attempted to subvert the constitutional order and should be made subjects of public discourse to prevent a recurrence of such events, thus warranting their names to be recorded in history.

The court rejected the Seoul Central District Court's argument that there are no provisions in criminal procedure law allowing the public to access undecided case rulings.

The judges stated, "To interpret that access to undecided case rulings by the general public is absolutely prohibited would violate the constitutional principle of proportionality," adding that the interpretation taken by the defendant poses a significant risk of such a violation.