News broke that three teenagers who tried to kill a woman for insurance money were caught by the police.

After killing a woman, they planned to collect insurance money and wielded a knife at a pension in Hwasun, Jeollanam-do, but fortunately the woman escaped the anger by hiding.

As a result of the police investigation, it is known that one of the three men had put hundreds of millions of won in death insurance in the name of the woman before the crime, and designated the beneficiary as the person responsible for the crime.



Outrage was aroused by their meticulous and brutal crimes.

However, when it was said that they were minors, public opinion shifted toward the unfairness that such a heinous criminal could not disclose the identity of a minor because he was a minor.



On the bulletin board of the Blue House petition, a post was posted saying, "Isn't the identity of these heinous teenagers not disclosed because of the Youth Protection Act. Please allow teenagers who have committed atrocious crimes to review the disclosure as well."

Nearly 17,000 people signed the petition.


Online, there was also an ambiguous explanation such as "In the case of Buta (real name Kang Hoon), who produced and distributed sexual exploitation in Room n, even though he was a teenager, his identity was revealed because of a serious crime. There is a precedent."



There are quite a few things to verify.

We fact-check to what extent it is true and to what extent it is false.



Are youth excluded from 'disclosure'?

First, I looked at the law.



There are two laws based on the disclosure of criminal identity.

These are the Special Act on the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes, the so-called 'Specific Violent Crime Act' and the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Violence Crimes, the so-called 'Sexual Violence Punishment Act'.

The Specific Violent Crimes Act contains grounds for disclosing the identity of violent and violent offenders, while the Sexual Violence Punishment Act contains the grounds for disclosing the identity of the offenders.

The types of crimes that apply are different, but the principles of personal disclosure are almost the same.



In order to guarantee the public's right to know, it is allowed to be disclosed when there is sufficient evidence and it meets the public purpose of preventing recidivism and crime.



However, both laws stipulate that juveniles are excluded from the disclosure of their personal information.


<Strong specific Special Act on the Punishment of the Crime>


Article 8 2 (published, such as the suspect's face)


4. The accused is "Youth Protection Act" shall not apply to second courtesy Youth paragraph 1



<Special Act on Punishment of Sexual Crimes, etc.>


Article Article 25 (Disclosure of suspect's face, etc.)


...

…

However, if the suspect is a juvenile under Article 2, Subparagraph 1 of the Juvenile Protection Act, it shall not be disclosed.


According to the law, it is a 'fact' that juveniles are excluded from 'disclosure' even if they commit serious crimes.



Victim caught on CCTV at Hwasun Pension


What is the age of teenagers excluded from 'disclosure'?

Then the question remains of how old a youth is.

As stated in the above law, we searched for the concept of youth defined in the 'Youth Protection Act'.


<Youth Protection Act>


Article 2 (Definition)


1. "Youth" means a person under the age of 19.

However, those who have reached the 1st of January of the year in which they turn 19 are excluded.


A juvenile is a person under the age of 19. Among them, it is said that a person who has reached January 1 of the year in which he or she turns 19 is excluded. Words are a bit complicated.



Let's take an example. As of today's October 16th, a person born on January 1, 2002 is 19 years old, and a person born on December 31, 2002 is also 18 years old as of today. Even in classmates, their age depends on their birthday.



People born on December 31, 2002 will turn 19 on December 31, 2021. However, applying the Juvenile Protection Act, this person is excluded from the scope of youth because he has already reached January 1, 2021, the year he turns 19.



In other words, a person born on December 31, 2002 is not a juvenile under the Juvenile Protection Act, even if he is 18 as of today.



If it's complicated though, I think you should understand it this way. If you enter elementary school at the age of 8 like everyone else and finish high school like everyone else, then whether you go to college, get a job, or get lucky, you are no longer a teenager after graduating from high school. However, age varies among classmates according to their birthdays, but the current Youth Protection Act can be understood as a concept of matching classmates.



If this definition of youth is applied, it can be seen that those born in 2003, who are now in their third year of high school, are excluded from disclosure of their identity even if they commit serious crimes.



For your reference, what we are talking about here is the Juvenile Protection Act, and the Civil Act, Game Industry Act, and Movie Video Act apply different standards for the age of majority in each law, so the reference point for juveniles may also vary.


Was Kang Hoon an exceptional case?

Then, Kang Hoon is a teenager, but has his identity been revealed as an exception?



Kang Hoon was born on May 8, 2001.

I turned 19 on May 8, 2020.

On April 16, 2020, when the personal release was decided, he was 18 years old.

Although he is 18 years old, according to the Juvenile Protection Act, Kang Hoon is not a juvenile under the Juvenile Protection Act as he has already reached January 1 of that year, the year he turns 19.

In fact, at the time of the release, Kang Hoon was graduating from high school and attending college.



In the end, it is not true that Kang Hoon is a teenager, but the crime is serious and he made an exception to disclose his identity.



For your reference, the Specific Violent Crimes Act or the Sexual Violence Punishment Act does not provide any exceptions to the disclosure of juvenile personal information.

Unless the law is amended, 'exceptionally' cannot disclose the identity of a young person just because the crime is serious.



Hwasun Pension where the incident occurred


Was the attempted murderer of Hwasun a teenager?

Let's go back to this case in Hwasun, Jeollanam-do. The starting point of this controversy is when it is known that the perpetrators are teenagers. In summary, the necessity of disclosing identities was raised due to the brutality of the crime, but it was said that it was impossible to disclose identities because they were teenagers, and it developed into a claim that the law that excludes the disclosure of juveniles should be abolished.



I contacted the Jeollanam-do Hwasun Police Station. Police said, "The suspects were mistakenly known as teenagers." I can't give you a specific date of birth due to personal issues, but they all said that they were classmates born in 2001. I graduated from high school in February of last year. Those born in 2001 are not juveniles under the Juvenile Protection Act.



After all, it's not true that insurance money homicides are teenagers. The source of the information is wrong.



The police said there was one more change to be made. He added that this case is just an attempted murder for insurance money, not a 'contract murder' as it was posted on the bulletin board of the Blue House. He said that there were more things that were misleading as a lot of information was entangled.



However, just because the source of information is wrong, it does not mean that the discussion about the disclosure of the identity of juvenile offenders is meaningless. We believe that even if an assertion is based on information that is not factual, it contains its own sincerity about the issue. In fact, public opinion in favor of disclosing criminal identities is always overwhelming. When a heinous crime case, juvenile or not, occurred, the demand for the identity of the criminal to be disclosed was flooded. That's probably because the public's anger is so great.



As a reporter, who is always close to the scene of the incident, there is no less anger.

There are moments when I too remain traumatized while covering a violent incident.

Nevertheless, it is also true that when the system deviates from its purpose and unexpected victims emerge, there is a lot of thinking.

When the identity of Jo Seong-ho was revealed at the time of the Sihwaho murder case in 2015, secondary damage occurred online in which the identity of Jo Seong-ho's ex-girlfriend was revealed.

Last year, a person whose identity was revealed on a rape charge was later acquitted by the prosecution.

If such cases accumulate, the purpose of the system of 'crime prevention' will inevitably fade.

That's probably why it requires more prudence and precision than we think.

Even more so if you are a teenager.



How to balance 'anger' and 'public interest' with the emotion of 'anger' against the heinous criminal and rational judgment for the 'public interest'.

The investigative agency's shoulders are heavy.


<References>


Blue House Petition Bulletin Board


Special Act on Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes Act on Special Cases concerning Punishment of


Sexual Violence Crimes


Youth Protection Act


(Interns: Minseon Kwon, Haeyeon Song)