The crime informants should be protected. ‘The Act on Protection of Specific Crime Informants, ETC’(APSCI) could be valid and effective by the act on protection of witness only, and ‘the Act on Protection of Public Interest Informants’(APPII) could be effective by the act on post measures for informants of identity disclosure: So, legal system of protection of the informants should be systematically made. The confidentiality of identity of informants that was important to protect should be kept at all of the crimes. A system based on political goal of ‘protection of crime informant’ could be made easily. The criminal justice procedure should protect crime informants’ identity, and it should prepare for defendants and/or suspects’ guessing of informant identity by informant’s report to assure informants of personal safety. Strong personal safety actions should be taken at disclosure of informant identity.
The informants did not report for purpose of public interest and/or justice only. In other words, the informants could report in falsehood, for removal of competitors, and for depriving of money. So, scope of guarantee of informants’ identity secret was difficult to decide upon, and a part of informant identity could be disclosed to suspects and/or defendants at suspicion of truth and/or purpose. And, guarantee of violators’ defense rights, and actions against false accusation, reversal of the statement and false statement, etc should be prepared, and government agencies’ functions and capability should be considered.
So, political goal of use of crime report was difficult to be in good harmony with that of protection of crime informant. Selection and concentration were needed, and either one of political goal could be given up. APSCI was enacted to protect crime informants, and it was actually concentrated on protection of the witness who stated and testified at the court. The witness could protect his body until statement and/or testifying at the court, and the informant who did not attend court could not protect his body. APPII was enacted to protect whistle blowers(or public interest informants), and it was concentrated not on protection of whistle blowers but on imposition of fine and/or penalty as well as compensation for informants.
The act was recently in force, and APSCI was in force last 12 years to help protect witness and elevate rate of the report. So, the systems themselves could not be said to be wrong. Men could not have perfect upright and/or faithfulness so that whistle blowers whose identity was disclosed were forced to leave organization despite follow-up measures. Whistle blowers’ identity that was important should be protected so that not only Special Act on Whistle Blower Protection but also Common Act on Whistle Blower Protection should supplement guarantee of secrets of whistle blowers and/or witness. If not, the act could not develop whistle blowing to be no more than ‘the Act on Compensation for Paparazzi’.
However, national policy could not be aimed at ‘protection of crime informants’ so that system that spent excessive budget, labor force and time was not good. And, advanced countries’ systems that did not meet Korean’s realities and emotion should not be used. When informants’ identity of not crime but violation of public administrative obligations was guaranteed or criminals (and witness) were not convicted because of contribution to legal justice, people’s consensus could not be produced.
First of all, informants’ identity should be designed either in differential way or systematically. For instance, regulations on protection of informants’ identity at low level should be made and then the ones at higher level should be done at crimes having high risks of retaliation. When informants’ identity was protected, personal safety and/or compensation that asked for budget could be supplemented later. And, crimes having high risks of retaliation crime should be given priority.
And, each system should strengthen advantages and supplement disadvantages. The act on protection of crime informants based on APSCI had advantage of ‘personal safety’ and the act of whistle blower protection based on APPII had advantage of ‘identity guarantee’. Advantages of both systems should be used to enact law on guarantee of crime informant’s identity and protection of personal safety by APSCI and to guarantee informants’ identity and protect personal safety by APPII. In other words, APSCI system should be made in preventative way in advance, and system based on the other acts should be used in post and recovery way, and another legal system could be used to supplement both legal systems. And, regulations that had poor content to contradict each other should be supplemented to attain political goal of protection of crime informants.