Prosecutors on the 2nd indicted former National Office of Investigation (NOI) Deputy Minister Park Sung-ju without detention on charges of ordering a shoddy probe in the "Jang Yun-gi case." Prosecutors said Park obstructed Gwangju Gwangsan Police Station from conducting the necessary investigation properly to avoid criticism that "police responded inadequately."
Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office (lead of the dedicated investigation team, Director General Prosecutor Kim Bong-jin) said it indicted without detention four people on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of the exercise of rights: former NOI Deputy Minister Park, the acting head of the NOI Violent Crime Investigation Division (now head of the Violent Crime Investigation Section), the former head of the NOI Women and Juvenile Crime Investigation Division, and the current head of the Sexual Violence Crime Investigation Section of the NOI Women and Juvenile Crime Investigation Division. Park retired on June 30 upon reaching the mandatory retirement age.
At about 12:10 a.m. on May 5, Jang Yun-gi killed high school student Lee Chae-won (16) as she was returning home and tried to kill another student who attempted to rescue Lee. During the Gwangju Gwangsan Police Station's investigation, it was confirmed that on the 3rd, two days before the incident, Jang had raped and stalked a Vietnamese woman he knew.
The Gwangsan Station investigation team determined there was a close connection between the "murder case" and the "stalking/rape case," and sent investigators to the region where the Vietnamese woman had moved to avoid Jang, taking her victim statement on the 7th. The team reported to the National Office of Investigation (NOI) through the Gwangju Metropolitan Police Agency on the 8th that it would merge the two cases and investigate them together.
In response, former Deputy Minister Park instructed the acting head of the Violent Crime Investigation Division, "We're not deliberately hiding the rape part, but there's no need for us to bring it up first. Handle the rape case quietly so it doesn't become open," and "Handle the murder case and the stalking/rape case separately."
Following the instruction, the acting head of the Violent Crime Investigation Division told the Gwangju Metropolitan Police Agency that Gwangsan Station should investigate Jang's murder case, while the Gwangju Metropolitan Police Agency should investigate the stalking/rape case. Prosecutors said Gwangsan Station repeatedly proposed merging the investigations and the transfer, but the working-level staff at the National Office of Investigation (NOI) ignored all of them under the former Deputy Minister Park's orders.
Regarding why Park gave such instructions, prosecutors noted that police at the time were facing criticism for their inadequate response to stalking—such as in the "Namyangju stalking murder case" on Mar. 14—and for failing to prevent the murder.
A prosecution official said, "Deputy Minister Park was concerned that if the sequence of Jang Yun-gi's crimes—from stalking and rape to murder—became known, criticism would flare again that it was 'a murder that could have been prevented if police had responded appropriately.'" The official added, "In fact, as Park intended, the connection between the inadequate initial response to the stalking/rape case and the occurrence of the murder was concealed for a considerable period."
Following the NOI's instruction to investigate separately, Jang Yun-gi was referred to prosecutors under arrest on charges of "simple murder." Prosecutors later conducted a supplementary investigation and indicted Jang under arrest on charges of "murder in the course of rape." Under the Criminal Act, ordinary murder is punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of at least five years, while murder in the course of rape is punishable only by death or life imprisonment.
The director of the NOI Criminal Affairs Bureau was also booked over the case, but prosecutors dismissed the charges. A prosecution official said, "Given the position and authority, we cannot rule out the possibility of involvement in the crime, but there is insufficient evidence to support it."
A prosecution official said, "This case is an example of identifying improper interference by the police's top investigative command in a front-line investigation," adding, "We hope this case will serve as an opportunity to guarantee front-line investigative agencies' legitimate exercise of investigative authority."