On the morning of the 4th, at the Uijeongbu District Court Namyangju Branch in Namyangju, Gyeonggi Province, the suspect (center) in the assault resulting in death case involving film director Kim Chang-min is moving to the courtroom for a pre-arrest suspect interrogation (substantive warrant review). Yonhap News

■ The meaning of the delayed detention

The suspects in the death of Director Kim Chang-min were belatedly detained. It came three weeks after a dedicated prosecution team was formed, and the court issued detention warrants about three hours after completing the substantive warrant review. It was late, but it is fortunate that the necessary procedures moved forward. Yet one question remains. Why was the case not viewed with this speed and intensity from the outset.

Detention requires caution. This is because bodily liberty and the presumption of innocence are at stake. However, if this was possible within three weeks once a dedicated team examined the case, we must ask whether the time before that was used adequately. If the weight of a case seems to change only after public opinion and media attention grow, trust in criminal justice cannot help but be shaken.

Not every victim can appeal to the media or retain counsel to follow the procedures. More people must continue with their livelihoods while waiting for a case to progress. Criminal justice must operate with the same rigor for such people. The state must first attend to the risks and pain of those who find it hard to make their voices heard.

Director Kim Chang-min was assaulted and collapsed, and it has been confirmed that he suffered additional assaults even as he was losing consciousness. He was then taken to a hospital but ultimately entered brain death and ended his life through organ donation. If the assaults continued after the victim had reached a state in which resistance was difficult, the weight of the case should have been different from the very starting point of the investigation.

How one views a case changes the direction of an investigation. The same CCTV, call records, and shifts in statements are read differently depending on how the seriousness of the case is perceived. To avoid treating it as just one among countless cases, there is a need for the capacity to empathize with the harm. Empathy is not a tilt toward emotion, but a stance for seeing a case accurately.

■ Questions remaining about the detention decision

A dismissal of a detention warrant does not mean the crime is light or that the suspect is innocent. In legal terms, it means that at this stage the necessity and reasonableness of detention have not been sufficiently recognized. However, the reality as received by the victim and the bereaved family is different. The phrase “Not even detained” at times circulates as if it lowers the weight of the case. Even after losing a family member, the bereaved are put in a position where they must again explain why this case is grave and why they feel unsafe.

The Criminal Procedure Act, in judging detention, requires that not only risk of flight and risk of evidence destruction, but also the gravity of the offense, the risk of reoffending, and the risk of harm to the victim or key witnesses be considered together. If so, in this case how substantially were the death of the victim, indications of assaults after a state of inability to resist, the possibility of multiple participants, and the real anxieties of the bereaved considered. Was the victim adequately reflected among the grounds for detention.

In this case, authorities initially identified only some assailants and applied for detention warrants, and it is recorded that considerable time passed through prosecutorial requests for supplementary investigation, identification of additional suspects, and reapplication. Thereafter, the court dismissed the warrants on grounds including fixed residence and no risk of flight, and the assailants were forwarded without detention. Each step likely had its own reasons. However, reasons for procedure do not in themselves account for the time of the victim and the bereaved.

If this was possible within three weeks after a dedicated team was formed, then such focus needs to begin at an earlier stage going forward. Not after public outcry grows, but from the very moment the harm occurs, the weight of the case must be properly seen.

A suspect in the ‘death of Director Kim Chang-min’ case appears on a YouTuber broadcast for an interview. YouTube channel broadcast screen

■ Secondary victimization must also be met with serious accountability

In criminal cases, what burdens victims and bereaved families is not only the criminal act itself. Words and actions that follow a case become another wound. This includes offenders stepping out first before the public to tell their own story, the case being consumed like sensational content, and the suffering of the bereaved being put on display again.

An apology must be directed to the victim and the bereaved. If an explanation aimed at the public comes first and, in the process, personal circumstances or claims of unfairness are put first, it can be received more as an excuse than an apology. When an apology that the victim and the bereaved have not heard is delivered first to the public, the bereaved are pushed out from the center of the case.

Secondary victimization is not merely a matter of manners. It infringes upon the personality rights of victims and the bereaved, makes recovery harder, and at times blurs the truth of the case. Therefore, clearer accountability is needed.

There is a need to seek liability for secondary victimization through civil claims for damages. Abusive remarks, distortion of facts, commercial consumption of the case, and secondary victimization that borrows the form of an apology are not matters to be brushed aside. The recent recognition of 2 billion won in consolation damages in the case involving Director Noh So-young shows that court assessments of mental harm can broaden. Consolation damages are not merely a system that converts the pain of a victim into money; they are also a measure that confirms which infringements society regards as serious.

The same perspective is needed for secondary victimization. When courts recognize substantial consolation damages for such mental harm, a preventive effect in stopping secondary victimization can also be expected.

Of course, legal responsibility alone is not sufficient. Society overall must also raise its awareness of secondary victimization. We need an attitude that does not consume the pain of victims and the bereaved as entertainment, responsibility by media and platforms that guard against sensational headlines and editing, and citizens who view public statements by offenders with a critical eye. Victims have already lost much. The time thereafter must not become yet another wound they have to endure.

■ The duty of the state to protect

Debate continues over the power to order supplementary investigations. However, it should not be seen merely as a question of how authority is divided between police and prosecution. The core is not which institution holds more power. How can the people be protected more robustly? We must return to this question.

The police are the institution that opens the first door of a case. The prosecution is the institution that fills gaps in investigations and prepares cases so that responsibility can be pursued in court. When judging whether to detain, the court must look not only to the rights of the suspect but also to the gravity of the crime, victim protection, and social trust. All three are institutions meant to protect the people.

What matters to the public is not which institution gains more power. What matters is whether the state will act properly when a member of my family becomes a victim, and whether the same standards of protection apply even when a case is not widely known. More important than the names of systems is whether the state listens to my grievance, moves to reduce my anxiety, and repairs systems so that the same thing does not recur.

The state must not remain an entity that belatedly punishes after a crime occurs. It must foresee risks, reduce harm, and protect victims and bereaved families from becoming isolated within procedures. That is the most basic duty of the state.

The Kim Chang-min case asks: Was the victim sufficiently considered among the grounds for detention? Can those without power be protected with the same rigor?

Criminal justice must start again from that place. It must center people, not authority. Remember the name of the victim, not the case number, and work so that victims and bereaved families are not left unattended within procedures again. The duty of the state to protect is proven precisely at that point.

■ Who is Attorney Jeong Tae-won?

While at the prosecution, he received the Supreme Prosecutors Office Outstanding Trial Division Chief award for the first half of 2023, and in 2010 received a Prosecutor General commendation for merit in prosecutorial work. He now serves as a managing attorney at LKB Pyeongsan, handling a range of criminal and major cases.