The investigation into allegations of botched initial police work surrounding the case of Jang Yun-gi, 23, the "Gwangju high school girl killer," is gaining pace.
Police secured closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage capturing the crime scene but sent the case to prosecutors without any substantial analysis. Prosecutors later conducted a detailed analysis of the footage and confirmed circumstances indicating a sex crime, leading the applied charge to be changed from simple murder to murder in the course of rape. With allegations of missing key evidence and leaks of investigative secrets also surfacing, the prosecution's investigation appears to be expanding beyond the field investigation team to the police command line. As the prosecution's probe moves toward senior police officials, observers say the conflict between prosecutors and police—who have engaged in friction over supplementary investigation authority—is likely to intensify further.
According to the legal community on the 9th, the Gwangju District Court on the previous day issued an arrest warrant for a police superintendent surnamed Park, who was the investigation team leader at Gwangsan Police Station in Gwangju at the time of the Jang Yun-gi case, on charges of leaking official secrets and destroying evidence.
Superintendent Park is accused of failing to seize cable ties that could have been used as restraining tools despite discovering them in Jang Yun-gi's sport utility vehicle (SUV), and of also failing to secure a "real doll" found in Jang Yun-gi's rented room. Prosecutors reportedly secured the cable ties, which had disappeared from the vehicle at the time of the case, during a search and seizure of the home of Jang Yun-gi's father, a police superintendent surnamed Jang.
Prosecutors are focusing on whether the missing evidence was a simple judgment by the field investigation team or the result of a report to or instruction from a superior. They are checking not only how the cable ties and the real doll came to be excluded from the seizure targets, but also how far up within the police the related content was reported, and whether there were instructions to block or reduce the securing of evidence. The background of why the case was framed as simple murder from the early stage is also a key subject of the investigation.
The circumstances of contact between the investigation team and Jang Yun-gi's father have also come under investigation. Prosecutors confirmed records of dozens of phone calls between the team and Superintendent Jang during a forensic examination of Jang's mobile phone. In a call with one investigation team member, they reportedly also secured a conversation indicating there had been an instruction from a superior to the effect of "investigate without letting it be known that the father is a police officer." Prosecutors are tracing from which command line the remark actually came and how it subsequently affected the direction of the investigation and the application of charges.
The police's CCTV analysis process has also come under scrutiny. Police reportedly secured CCTV footage capturing the crime scene but sent the case to prosecutors without a detailed analysis. Prosecutors, on the other hand, requested additional footage analysis during the supplementary investigation and confirmed scenes such as Jang Yun-gi approaching the victim with the vehicle's rear door open, applying the charge of murder in the course of rape based on this and other evidence. Murder in the course of rape is a serious crime punishable by up to the death penalty or life imprisonment.
As the prosecution's investigation expands beyond the field investigation team to the police command line, the possibility is being raised that the scope of the probe could broaden across the police's entire internal reporting and command system. Police are also reportedly checking work connections and personal ties, given factors such as Jang Yun-gi's uncle being an incumbent police officer.
Meanwhile, the case has reignited controversy over the "special exemption for destruction of evidence among relatives" under criminal law. Even though circumstances emerged in which Jang Yun-gi's father, an active police officer, destroyed his son's evidence, he was excluded from criminal punishment as the relative exemption for destruction of evidence was applied, prompting calls for institutional improvement.
According to the Korea Legal Aid Corporation, legal consultations related to the exemption for property crimes among relatives have continued steadily over the past several years. The number of consultations rose from 225 in 2021 to 284 in 2022, then recorded 269 in 2023 and 247 in 2024. This year, 83 consultations were received through June, and in May, when the Jang Yun-gi case occurred, the number of consultations was 16, up from 11 the previous month.
