File photo” alt=”Seoul Seocho-gu Supreme Prosecutor’s Office.
Seoul Seocho-gu Office of the Supreme Prosecutor. <한겨레> data picture
The prosecution’s negligent handling of the case led to the destruction of evidence from a police officer suspected of having committed a crime. The prosecution said that it followed the relevant regulations, but there is criticism that it was a mechanical interpretation of the regulations that did not take into account the situation of the investigation. The Suwon District Prosecutor’s Office announced on the 1st that it had arrested and charged a police officer from the South Gyeonggi Police Agency on charges of illegal filming (violation of the Special Act on the Punishment of Crimes of Sexual Violence) and destruction of evidence. From several years ago until last December, Kyung-jang met 26 women in their 20s and 30s whom he met on a blind date app, filmed sex videos without their consent with a camcorder, etc., and was accused of be in their possession. However, the investigation into this case ran into difficulties once due to a ‘mistake’ by the prosecution. As a result of the comment, the Suwon District Prosecutor’s Office transferred the case to the police after receiving the complaint from the victim. The amended Prosecutor’s Office Act limits the prosecution’s right to investigate, but it also states that ‘the prosecution may investigate crimes committed by police officers’. It is a provision to prevent various problems that arise when the police investigate the crimes of police officers. Prosecutors said they are not directly investigating because they judge it to be “personal misconduct” rather than “official misconduct.” The problem is that as the case went to the police, the target of the investigation, Police Officer A, was informed that “you are the target of the investigation.” According to the ‘Regulations on Cooperation between Prosecutors and Judicial Police Officers and the General Rules for Investigation’, which determine the investigative cooperation relationship between the police and the prosecution, it is considered to be ‘closed’ when a complaint is passed filed directly by a prosecutor. to the police. As the case is closed, ‘notice’ goes to the accuser as well as the accused. It is not common sense for an investigating agency to inform a defendant that it has not had a full investigation of the charge. In fact, the rules of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office also contain provisions such as ‘the consent of the complainant must be obtained before informing the accused that he has received the complaint’ and ‘if the complainant consents, there is a concern about the destruction of evidence . , etc., the notice of receipt of the complaint is limited’. After hearing about his accusation, Sergeant A set about destroying evidence. As a result of the South Suwon Police Station’s seizure and search of the Gyeongjang residence and analysis of nearby CCTV, two days after being informed of the prosecution by the prosecution, recognition threw parts such as a PC, hard disk, and other parts of the Police . Main A in the trash. Through forensics, traces of several images were found, but some were deleted. The police also applied charges of inciting the destruction of evidence to Inspector A. As soon as the investigation began, the prosecution announced that it would amend the related regulations, saying they were incomplete. Reporter Park Ji-young jyp@hani.co.kr
