[Subs夜] 'I want to know' One event, two conclusions... Seokranjeong Fire Mystery 'True Tracking'

One Event, Two Conclusions What is the truth in them?

In the SBS 'I want to know' broadcast on the 3rd, the truth of the Seokranjeong fire was pursued with the subtitle 'The Unquenched Ember of Suspicion - The Seokranjeong Fire Mystery'

On September 16, 2017, a fire broke out in Seokranjeong Pavilion, a pavilion in Gyeongpo Lake, Gangneung. Fortunately, the fire was extinguished immediately, but the fire came back to life within six hours, and two firefighters who were working on the fire were killed.

Veteran firefighter Lee Young-wook, one year before retirement, went to Seokranjeong Pavilion with new firefighter Lee Ho-hyun, who said he took care of him like a son, to catch the revived fire. At that time, colleagues at the scene tried their best to save the two firefighters, but a miracle did not happen.

However, the bereaved family and colleagues were frustrated by this incident, saying that no one told the cause of the fire. At the time, the fire department suspected an arson. The fire department suspected the arson, saying that flammable substances were produced, but the National Forensic Service closed the case as a 'general fire' saying the cause of the fire was unknown.

Different conclusions from one event, what is the truth? And why are the conclusions of the two institutions so starkly different?

The production team wanted to know the results of the investigation, so they requested an interview in advance and found the agency in charge. However, the official kept his mouth shut, stating that the guideline was not to respond to the interview. The production team requested an answer from the National Police Agency until the end of the interview, but there was no response until the end.

At that time, the National Police Agency concluded that it was a general fire because there was no evidence or evidence to believe it was an arson, and the possibility of spontaneous ignition could not be excluded. If so, was there anything that could have caused spontaneous combustion at that time? A fire investigator at the Fire Department explained, "The possibility of spontaneous ignition cannot be ignored, but looking around the interior, I believe that there was no possibility of spontaneous ignition."

There were various items inside Seokranjeong Pavilion, where access was controlled. The owner of these items is the manager of Seokranjeong. But the expert said none of his objects could cause spontaneous combustion.

If it was not spontaneous ignition, there was a possibility of a fire caused by an electrical problem. However, the National Forensic Service as well as the fire department concluded that there is no possibility of a fire due to an electrical problem where electricity is not supplied.

It was a natural procedure to suspect that Seok Ran-jeong had a big fire even though there was no reason to do so. If arson is correct, what is the reason?

In response, an expert said, "As a kind of expressive crime, there may be arson to appeal to injustice or anger, and there may be arson aimed at the gain that can be obtained by setting fire to damage."

And during the interview, the production crew heard a strange story from a nearby merchant. At the time, the construction of a new hotel was in full swing next to Seokranjeong Pavilion. However, it is said that the place where Seokranjeong was located was originally Nara land, but it was sold to a company, and Seokranjeong was reduced to an uninvited guest who occupied the hotel land without permission. And the residents said that the hotel was the only one that benefited from the fire in Seokranjeong, saying, "I have only a heart attack."

It was also confirmed that there was a conflict between the hotel and the manager during the interview. At that time, the police suspected the arsonist as a suspect in the arson, who had protested several times in relation to Seokranjeong, which was damaged by hotel construction. However, experts analyzed that the manager looked innocent in many ways.

And at the time, the police believed that the hotel had nothing to do with the fire. The discussion with descendants to move Seokranjeong Pavilion to another location at a great cost was taken into account. The descendants of Kaywon also had the same idea. The hotel also offered to rebuild Seokranjeong Pavilion at the time of the fire.

At the time, a hotel official said that he quit his job around the time of the Seokranjeong fire. He lamented, "If that is not resolved, the construction permit will not be granted. No matter how many fires are burning across the country, there are things that can be overcome and things that cannot. What is his Olympics?" he lamented.

At that time, the fire investigator said that the site analysis found traces of arson on the floor of Seokranjeong Pavilion. Inflammable substances spilled on the floor are called pore patterns, which are called pore patterns, and they were found in three places inside Seokranjeong Pavilion. Therefore, the expert analyzed that there should be at least one ignition point unless someone deliberately put out a fire, but there are at least three ignition points in Seokranjeong.

Also, at the time of the accident, rescue workers testified that it smelled like thinner, but had a peculiar and disgusting smell. Accordingly, the fire department collected debris based on the pore pattern and requested analysis. As a result, an ingredient believed to be the raw material for thinner was discovered. The fire department said that it was convinced of the arson based on the crew's memories and traces of the scene.

However, the police cannot rule out a situation in which a pore pattern is accidentally created as the fire spreads to the stored flammable material after a fire for some reason. The expert said, "If there is an unconditional pore pattern, there is a problem. However, it is difficult for a pore pattern to exist in every room by chance."

At that time, the National Forensic Service concluded that the cause of the fire was unknown. Regarding this, researcher Jung-woo Nam explained, "Eight sites were collected, but no flammable material was found. Therefore, it is difficult to say that this is a pore pattern." He added that the ingredients used as raw materials for thinner found by the fire department are detected not only in thinner but also in products made from petroleum. He also said that there is a possibility that traces made for other reasons may have been mistaken for a pore pattern.

However, the expert said, "If the solid has fallen and is burned, it is not continuous and uniform." He analyzed that the shape of the incident site was traces of flowing flammable liquids.

Therefore, the production team conducted an experiment by reproducing the scene of the fire at the time of Seok Ran-jeong. First, it was checked whether a shape similar to the pore pattern could be made without flammable materials. As a result, traces quite similar to those of Seok Ran-jeong were identified. However, unlike Seokranjeong's, where the border is blurred, in the experiment, it became more distinct as the border got closer.

Now it's time to verify the firefighter's claims. Firefighters claimed that they used a mixture of paint as well as thinner. In response, the broadcast confirmed what kind of traces it made by setting the fire as the firefighters insisted. The traces of liquid flowing evenly over a wide surface were quite similar to those of Seokranjeong.

But why are flammable substances detected only in the data collected by the fire department? This pointed out that the point where the fire department took the sample and the national forensic tree were different. It turned out that the fire department, which mainly collected debris from the pore pattern, but the National Forensic Service collected samples around the patterns.

And the broadcast paid attention to the point that the liquid flows from high to low. Seokranjeong had been leaning sharply right after the construction of the hotel. As a result, the building in Seokranjeong was tilted in the direction the support was located. And if the traces on the floor were pore patterns, the flammable material would have flowed in the opposite direction to the place where the national fruit tree took the sample. In response, the expert said, "I think that much more meaningful data is the data collected by the fire department."

Those who witnessed the second fire at the time said that they had taken pictures of it just in case. The location where the ignition was estimated was on the floor. The reporter suspected the arson, saying, "Flame was coming up from the ground under the floorboard."

Rescue workers who were dispatched at the time of the report were greatly surprised to see this photo. He said, "Wood, fire, and water, but there is no artificial fire like this." He said, "I sprayed about 20 tons of water, but it is possible that a little smoke rises, but it is not convincing that a fire like this is big. "He said.

Regarding the second fire, an expert said, "At the time of the first fire, the culprit sprayed flammable substances inside the stone pavilion, but since the floor was a floor, flammable substances flowed out through the cracks. If this hypothesis is correct, it is more likely that the primary fire was arson.

The second fire was tested again to confirm whether the first fire was an arson. As a result, it was confirmed that a re-ignition occurred in the pine needles on the floor of the site after the fire was extinguished. Flammable substances were still present in the pine needles.

A fire investigator at the Fire Department said, "Reignition can be a piece of data that someone has artificially sprayed flammable liquid. I think this is also a sign of arson."

If so, couldn't a single line of the results submitted by the fire department be recognized by the police? An investigative official at the time said, "At that time, two firefighters died, so we were playing the media play because it was a sensitive matter, but for us, the opinion of the firefighters is not important, but the feelings of the National Forensic Service."

Police with a resolution rate of over 90% of arson crimes, an expert pointed out, "Because it is not easy to conclude that arson is arson. As for the percentage of incidents suspected of arson, it is very likely that it will be lower than that of developed countries." did. Another expert warned, "There is a circumstance, and we investigated, but if we do not catch the arsonist and do not treat it as an arson case, eventually the arsonist will wander around our society."

At the same time, the expert mentioned the Kang Ho-soon case. The expert said, "You say that there were two more arson cases before that. But before that, the fire department said it was arson, but the police said it wasn't arson."

Finally, the broadcast emphasized the need for a genuine explanation for the families left behind for the firefighters who did not forget their calling and fulfilled their mission. And the broadcaster said that there may be more deaths than expected due to the difference of opinion between the two agencies, and asked them not to forget that the firefighters, their families, and the people depend on the police and firefighters.

(SBS Entertainment News Editor Kim Hyo-jung)