[Report File] Prosecutor in 'Murder Case of Living Daughter' "There is evidence in front of me... Crime evaporates"

‘Kung’ on the 19th floor of the apartment…

A man who killed his cohabiting wife Mr. A

A man in his 30s was arrested by the police in November last year on charges of stabbing a woman he lived with in an apartment in Seocho-gu, Seoul several times and dropping it out of a window on the 19th floor to kill him.

In a brutal way, the statement that 'I committed the crime out of anger at the word of breaking up' was enough to cause outrage.

When it was also known that he had said that he would make an extreme choice while reporting to 112 himself immediately after the crime, the criticism of public opinion grew.

The police arrested A and handed it over to the prosecution for murder within a week of the crime.

The case that seemed to have been closed in that way enters a new phase at the Prosecutor's Office.

Charged with 'murder'...

"Drugs too"

The chief prosecutor, who was reviewing the case record, noticed things that were not clear to him.

In the part that Mr. A said as if passing by, there were several circumstances suspected of using drugs at the time of the crime.

The prosecutor, who discovered the fact that he had a drug history by searching his criminal history, requested a detailed analysis of narcotics from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office within a day after taking over the case, and the first result was 'positive', that is, the fact that Mr. A was taking drugs. Has confirmed.

It was difficult to deny the fact of the drug itself in front of the evidence.

However, Mr. A claimed that he was using drugs long before the crime.

Ambiguous 'direct relevance'...

In the end, supplementary investigation 'request'

However, the prosecution, who has secured a confession in drug-related evidence, runs into a wall.

According to the adjustment of the investigative authority, the current prosecutor can only conduct complementary investigations if there is a 'direct connection' with the crime handed over by the police.

If the murder was committed while under the influence of drugs, there is room for interpretation that it is directly related, but if Mr. A denies this in court and claims that 'the prosecutor investigated illegally even though there is no direct connection', there will be a hole through which a person can escape. that you can.

The deadline for indictment was getting closer and closer.

In December of last year, a month after the incident, the prosecution applied only the murder charges and handed over the narcotics part to the police for a complementary investigation, that is, whether the fact that Mr. I decide to 'require' to investigate the back.

(At the time, an official from the prosecution told SBS reporters, "There is room for dispute over the scope of the investigation, so we requested a supplementary investigation." However, there was no evidence related to drugs.”

No reduction or reduction even on request...

in conclusion

As time passed, the results of the additional drug tests entrusted to the bayonet came back positive one after another and delivered them to the police.

It was frustrating, but the prosecution complained that there was nothing they could do other than call the police station and ask about the progress because they did not have the authority to command the investigation or to force the supplementary investigation.

Then, one day, the autopsy record that the same type of drug as that Mr. A was administered was also found in the victim's body was transferred to the prosecution.

It was revealed that the possibility of drug administration just before death was revealed, and if Mr. A had administered drugs to the victim just before the crime, the possibility of applying other charges that could result in a heavier sentence besides the simple murder charge increased.

However, a few days later, the police verbally delivered the news that "no drugs were detected in the investigation by the National Forensic Service for Mr. A."

Due to the difficult result, the prosecution sent an official letter again to request a supplementary investigation, and the police, who had been without notice for more than three months, recently responded again.

The conclusion is that there is no investigation conducted by the police related to A's drug charges.

However, the prosecution said that the National Forensic Service appraisal document presented by the police as a basis for judgment contained an explanation to the effect that 'there may be differences in the results of the appraisal depending on the area or method of hair collection,' the prosecution said.

"Crime Evaporation...Who is the revision for?"

While the prosecutors are arguing over the case, the first trial of Mr. A's murder has already begun, and the maximum arrest period of up to 6 months will end soon.

If the prosecution requests an additional arrest warrant for other crimes before that, or if the trial court does not reach a conclusion, the possibility that Mr. A will be released cannot be ruled out.

It is known that Mr. A is appealing for mercy by issuing a statement of remorse several times.

Seo Jeong-sik, a senior prosecutor who leads the investigation team for Mr. A's case, said, "We often review countermeasures, but even after discovering the circumstances of the crime in front of us, we are unable to investigate or prosecute any more. said.

He emphasized that this case is a case that clearly shows the problems that will arise if the scope of the complementary investigation is limited in the future.

Even though clear evidence has been confirmed, once the police have made a verdict of not guilty, it will be practically impossible to properly ask for the price of the crime or to provide relief for the victim.

Chief Prosecutor Seo inquired:

"I can't help asking who will benefit from this change. What does this have to do with the Prosecutor's Republic of Korea or the separation of prosecution and investigation?"

' Office .

Looking at the records, it was discovered that the suspect was using drugs.

(Mr. A) was in the middle of the flow, so when the chief prosecutor checked the criminal history check, he probably had committed a drug-related crime before, so he must have committed this crime while under drug use (I guess.) Besides, he still died on the 19th floor. Dropping and killing a person who has not done so is a very serious crime that cannot be committed in the normal state of the general public, so I had such suspicions and commissioned a narcotics investigation to the Supreme Prosecutor's Office.

that when a murder occurs, the police have no choice but to focus on collecting the most basic evidence.

The primary investigation is to secure evidence and investigate whether the victim confessed to the crime against the person involved, and there is a limit to not being able to fully grasp the facts within a set time frame.

However, since the prosecution has a different perspective and looks at the motive or process that lies at the root of the suspect's actions along with the police record, there are advantages that we can grasp through the investigation record revealed by the police.

One of the reasons why prosecutors do not understand this amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act is that

There is no vague circumstance, but the most objective evidence is the prosecutor's narcotics test result, the confession statement of the suspect that partially matches it, and the autopsy result later reveals that the same narcotics were detected in the victim's autopsy report. We got it again as a notice.

The presence of narcotic drugs in (the victim's) stomach suggests that the drug was administered within about three hours (death).

Judging from these three pieces of evidence, I suspected that the suspect at the time of the murder committed a crime against or with the victim while using or using drugs, and a complementary investigation to support such suspicion was conducted. That's why I made a request for a supplementary investigation to the police.

(After the adjustment of investigative powers) The current regulations of the Public Prosecutor's Office Act have been put in place so that only crimes directly related to cases sent by the police can be investigated by the prosecution.

However, if (A) was on drugs at the time of the murder, and the drug use status is directly related to, or related to, the murder, we judge it as a directly related crime, and we can file a separate case and prosecute it together. Regarding the drugs to which the suspect applies, we presume that, in order to avoid responsibility, 'It is true that I did drugs, but I did drugs a long time ago' (it seems to have been stated.)

14 days after the first (reply after request for supplementary investigation), the police sent me a document in the form of notification of the results of the supplementary investigation.

The purpose is to review whether the investigation continues after the police conduct a separate hair analysis at the National Forensic Service.

(Recent reply) I sent a reply related to asking the National Forensic Service about why the results of the National Forensic Service's hair analysis did not detect narcotics, and once again, the Supreme Prosecutor's results and the National Forensic Service's results were different.

This is the content of receiving such a reply from the National Forensic Service, 'The results may vary depending on various factors, such as the difference in the time the hair was collected, the area it was collected, and the institution and tool that evaluates it.

It was January 28th that the police received the results of these evaluations and a reply to questions from the National Forensic Service.

It's been three months from now, but after January, without any notice to us...

.

If the (positive drug test) in institution A did not come out, but the test result was positive in institution B, the historical fact is that this person took narcotics during the target period.

Just because it didn't come out of A, it didn't come out, it's not something I can admit like this.

Even the National Forensic Service itself

In our case, if one of the results of the investigation by the National Forensic Service and the Supreme Prosecutor's Office is (positive drug test), based on that,

If the suspect gave the victim drugs and led to the crime of quasi-rape murder, that is, if he raped and killed while unconscious, the difference in statutory punishment is the death penalty for simple murder, and fixed-term imprisonment of up to five years.

The latter, quasi-rape murder, on the other hand, carries the death penalty or life imprisonment.

First of all, the categories that can be considered

The duration of the first trial (the longest arrest) in a murder case is six months.

(Last year) Since the prosecution was charged in December, the first trial expires in May, and if we do not promptly prosecute additional charges and have them be tried together, they will either be released or they will

I checked several times to speed up those parts.

However, the current system problem is the way to check it,

If you weren't interested, this case would have been buried.

Interested personnel should frequently ask the officer in charge 'how was it' over the phone and get feedback.

Since there is no formal procedure other than notification of the results of the supplementary investigation, we have continued to check in this way, but there has been no reply so far, but I understand that it was sent only after we kept urging us to decide whether to indict the combined prosecution.

In reality, this is a disappointing part in the current Prosecutor's Office Act and the current Criminal Procedure Act.

In the past, we did not have to ask the police for a supplementary investigation, and if there are this level of evaluation results, autopsy report, and testimony of the suspect, it is a matter that can sufficiently be charged with the suspect after some complementary investigation.

not give us the right to investigate, so we sent it to the police.

In the end, in this situation,

If legislators or those in charge of legislation have suffered such damage, we have to ask whether they will be able to accept the progress of this additional investigation.

the prosecutors

Because of the relevance of this to the Prosecutor 's Republic of

and the separation of prosecution and investigation, it is difficult to understand why they want to block such investigations (it is difficult to understand).

The amendment is in progress under the pretext of giving the police authority to investigate and the prosecution authority to prosecute, but in our view, sufficient evidence has been secured through objective data and statements of the parties. If the police do not think so, even though we requested a supplementary investigation to make a judgment on the indictment, in the end, the

and both the nominal and reality of being granted only the investigative authority. can be seen that different results are occurring.

In order for us to solve the pain and sorrow of (victims), it is our role to clearly reveal and reveal the reality of the crime and to receive punishment for it.

As many people have been talking about, if we do not take any action even though we find very suspicious circumstances related to drug crimes in front of our eyes,

we continue to speak to the media and our people.

In this regard, we will continue to tell you about our complementary investigation process, the request for a supplementary investigation from the police, and the results

problem.

(Video coverage: Seol Min-hwan / Editing: Jang Hee-jung / Production: D Content Planning Department)