The police investigating the 'dog bite death accident' that occurred in Namyangju, Gyeonggi Province, in May, is facing the final challenge.

This is because the court dismissed the arrest warrant requested by the police and questioned the 'identity' of the large dog for a reason.

The police are in the position of proving that the dog brought by the suspect in the past and the large dog that attacked and killed passersby are the same dog through reinforcement investigations, but there is no proper way to prove the 'dog identity' match. seems to lead to

According to the Namyangju Northern Police Station, the police conducted an investigation for about three months, and suspect A, the owner of a dog farm near the scene of the incident, adopted the large dog from an acquaintance in June last year. It was tentatively concluded that he attacked and killed a passer-by.

On the basis of 'two dogs are the same dog', we presented a photo of a large dog taken at the time of adoption last year and the opinion of a specialized agency that analyzed the appearance of the dog caught after this year's incident.

As a result of the analysis, it was found that the shape of the ears and the pattern and spacing of the beard were almost similar.

In addition, as a result of on-site verification, the fact that the large dog showed attachment to the facility operated by Mr. A and Mr. A was also suggested as the basis.

Person A took over the dog from an acquaintance, and later, "The dog died and burned it," was also secured and presented as circumstantial evidence.

A denied all charges.

The police judged that there is a high risk of destroying evidence and applied for an arrest warrant on charges such as manslaughter and teacher destruction of evidence.

However, on the 26th of last month, the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence that the two dogs appearing in the case were the same dog, and dismissed the warrant, saying, "There is an insufficient explanation for the fact of the suspect."

There is no clear standard or precedent for identifying a dog, and it is hasty to conclude that the dog has the same appearance as the same dog.

A police official said, "The dog had been contemplating applying the law to one part of his life as an abandoned dog for a long time, but surprisingly, the court questioned whether the identity of the dog, which he thought was certain, was a bit disconcerting."

Reinforcing the dog's identity through investigations for the remainder of the period does not seem easy.

This is because humans have elements that can legally prove their identity, such as fingerprints, ID cards, and genes, but dogs do not have anything other than identification chips.

A police official explained, "The arrest warrant has been dismissed, but the investigation agency's judgment is that negligence can be applied with the evidence collected so far."

In addition to the dog's identity, the case is likely to be a heated court battle with unprecedented issues.

One of them is whether the former owner can be punished when a dog that has been living as an abandoned dog has a fatal accident.

It is also of interest whether field tests, behavioral evaluations, etc. in which the dog is the subject can be accepted as evidence.

The police are said to have been contemplating the application of legal principles as there is no precedent to refer to while investigating this case.

Earlier, at around 3:25 pm on May 22, a woman in her 50s was bitten by a large dog at the entrance to a hill in Saneung-ri, Jingeon-eup, Namyangju-si, and eventually died.

The owner of a nearby dog ​​farm, Mr. A, was designated as the dog owner of this large dog.

In the beginning, there was no evidence, but a record was found that a dog similar to a large dog was adopted by Mr. B, and Mr. B confessed that he had handed over the dog to Mr. A, and Mr. A was identified as the dog owner.

(Photo = Yonhap News)