Herald Economy report | Law Firm Jonjae Managing Attorney Yoon Ji-sang

Attorney Yoon Ji-sang, a former juvenile court judge, offers expert opinion

Hello. This is Law Firm Jonjae.

In a detailed report on the legal and social controversy surrounding the disclosure of actor Jo Jin-woong's history of being sent to a juvenile detention facility during his teens, Herald Economy sought opinions from multiple legal experts. Attorney Yoon Ji-sang, the managing attorney at Law Firm Jonjae, offered expert commentary as a former judge who handled juvenile cases.

"Records of juvenile dispositions are designed so that even investigative agencies cannot access them"

Managing Attorney Yoon Ji-sang said, "Records of juvenile dispositions are, in principle, designed so that even investigative agencies cannot access them," and added, "It is not justified for misconduct in youth to remain like a lifelong stigma even after one becomes an adult." Article 32, Paragraph 6 of the Juvenile Act clearly states that protective dispositions are not criminal records and should not affect a person's future identity, while Article 70, Paragraph 1 sets out the principle that records of protective cases are confidential.

"In the case of public figures, broader scrutiny may be allowed for matters of public interest"

Managing Attorney Yoon Ji-sang also offered a balanced view, saying, "This does not mean that all private life may be disclosed without limit simply because it is a public interest issue, but in the case of public figures such as politicians and entertainers, broader scrutiny may be allowed for matters related to public concern." Citing Constitutional Court precedents, he added, "Because freedom of expression and protection of reputation are both important values, one must comprehensively examine whether the expression concerns a matter of public interest and whether it constitutes false or malicious defamation."

Opinions within the legal community are also divided

In this report, legal experts' opinions were largely split into two camps. One side argued that the rehabilitative purpose of the Juvenile Act should be respected, and that bringing up decades-old juvenile records to stigmatize someone directly conflicts with the law's legislative intent. The other side stated that media reporting is an area protected by the Constitution, that a public figure's privacy must inevitably be limited, and that what the Juvenile Act prohibits is only reporting on cases currently on trial. However, there was agreement that separate legal issues arising after a person becomes an adult must be addressed separately.