"Tell me where the closed-circuit (CC)TVs are installed inside the detention center."
"Disclose the ranks and names of the security division staff."
"Give me last year's performance evaluation materials for Officer A in the general affairs division."
These are recent requests for information disclosure filed by inmates at prisons and detention centers. Last year, requests for information disclosure at correctional institutions nationwide exceeded 60,000, the most on record. There was even a case in which one inmate filed 120 requests for information disclosure. People in the field say some inmates' repetitive and indiscriminate requests are adding to correctional officers' workload.
According to the Ministry of Justice on the 16th, correctional institutions nationwide processed a total of 62,580 requests for information disclosure last year. That was up 17.4% from 53,327 the previous year. Compared with 16,708 in 2015, the figure rose about 3.8 times.
The information disclosure request system was introduced to guarantee the public's right to know and to increase transparency in the operation of public institutions. But in the field, there are many accounts that some inmates use the system as civil complaints or as a means to pressure correctional officers.
In fact, one inmate at a certain detention center was found to have filed as many as 120 information disclosure requests from last year through the 8th. Many other cases were confirmed in which a single inmate at prisons and detention centers filed 30 to 50 information disclosure requests.
The targets ranged from security facility information to personnel records of correctional officers, budget and contract information, and details related to specific inmates. Looking at information disclosure requests filed with major correctional facilities such as Seoul Detention Center, Anyang Prison, Suwon Detention Center, Seoul Eastern Detention Center, Incheon Detention Center, and Busan Detention Center, inmates demanded the locations of CCTV installations inside detention centers, the ranks and names of all staff in the security division, specific employees' promotion dates, correctional officers' performance evaluation records, and promotion exam question sheets and answer sheets.
Information with little direct connection to their own treatment also became targets. There were cases demanding reports on water quality tests for correctional facility water tanks, the status of inmates with AIDS by age group, and the addresses, business registration numbers, and production unit costs of manufacturers of sneakers sold at detention centers. An inmate at one correctional facility also requested information related to Rebuilding Korea Party leader Cho Kuk when Cho was previously held.
Matters related to security or personal information can be withheld from disclosure. The problem is that even after a nondisclosure decision, not a few cases proceed to administrative appeals or administrative lawsuits. There was also an inmate who filed a criminal complaint accusing the employee who refused disclosure of dereliction of duty. From the perspective of correctional officers, they end up handling not only the requests for information disclosure but also the subsequent challenge procedures.
According to the Ministry of Justice, there were 477 administrative appeals filed last year challenging nondisclosure decisions. Most were dismissed or rejected, and none were upheld. All 39 administrative lawsuits filed during the same period were also not accepted.
A 2024 amendment to the Information Disclosure Act that would allow front-line offices to close out malicious information disclosure requests on their own has emerged but is still adrift. Moreover, even when the requests are repetitive, if the requester cleverly changes the content or the period, it can be ambiguous to deem them repetitive, making it practically difficult to close them out in practice.
A Korea Correctional Service official said, "The public's right to know and the provision of information necessary for inmates must, of course, be guaranteed," but added, "If we respond to all information disclosure requests that are unrelated to their own treatment or are made for improper purposes, administrative waste is inevitable." The official also said, "We need institutional safeguards that can, to some extent, restrict information disclosure requests that are not directly related to the inmate in question."
Experts advise that rather than restricting the right to request information disclosure itself, the system should be supplemented by specifying the scope of requests and proactively disclosing information that is frequently sought.
Yun Ok-kyung, president of the Korean Correctional Association and a professor in the Department of Crime and Corrections at Kyonggi University, said, "Applicants need to be required to specify exactly what information they actually need," adding, "For example, instead of requesting the entire Penal Execution Act, they should be required to specify which parts of the Penal Execution Act they need materials on."