"Police Dismissal After 'Just a Prank, Tapped Her Buttocks' Claim, Prosecutors' Reinvesigation Finds Audio Recording and Refers Case to Juvenile Court"

Attempted Cover-Up of 14-Year-Old Girl's Assault by Police
Full Truth Revealed Through Prosecutors' Reinforcement Investigation
Voice Phishing and Ponzi Scheme Cases
Prosecution Overcomes Flaws in Non-Referral Dispositions
Prosecutors:

A case in which a 16-year-old male forcibly molested a 14-year-old female student and claimed, "I just slapped her on the butt as a joke," was almost dismissed at the judicial police stage without being referred for prosecution. However, following a reinvestigation by the prosecution, a recording file was discovered, and the decision was overturned with the suspect indicted.

On May 22, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office announced major cases in which it had uncovered hidden crimes by activating the judicial control mechanism of 'request for reinvestigation' in response to the decision of non-referral by judicial police officers.

The most representative case is the forcible molestation of the 14-year-old female student. In this case, the judicial police officer decided not to refer the 16-year-old male suspect, citing the suspect's claim that "it was just a joke, both parties slapped each other on the buttocks," and the alleged lack of consistency in the victim's statement. However, the prosecution determined that there was no motive for the victim to file a false report and conducted a thorough reinvestigation, interviewing the homeroom teacher, academy staff, and friends. As a result, a recording file containing facts the victim had confided to acquaintances immediately after the incident and part of the circumstances of the crime was found. The suspect was then referred as a juvenile protection case in February.

In a voice phishing case, the police's non-referral decision was also overturned. One suspect, after transferring funds deposited into his account to a member of the criminal organization, claimed, "I just did as an unidentified person told me to get a loan," and managed to secure a non-referral decision from the judicial police officer. However, the prosecution reinvestigated and, by analyzing the conversation history with the organization member, found sufficient evidence that the suspect was aware of the illegality. The case was referred and the suspect was brought to trial, resulting in a guilty verdict confirmed in October last year. Another suspect, who had lent his bank account without permission, also claimed to be a victim because a burner phone was activated in his name and was not referred for prosecution. However, the prosecution indicted him based on his previous involvement in burner phone distribution and similar cases involving accomplices, thereby proving his awareness of illegality. This case resulted in a summary order confirmed in October last year.

Furthermore, in a fraud case disguised as an investment in video production, the suspect claimed to have paid video production investment profits to the victim, and the judicial police officer accepted this and made a non-referral decision. However, the prosecution pointed out that there was no mention of video production costs in the KakaoTalk conversation records and directed a tracking of accounts. The reinvestigation revealed that the suspect had not produced any videos but rather borrowed money from multiple investors to engage in so-called 'Ponzi' repayments, leading to indictment.

In another case, a suspect installed a 350-meter-long fence on a hiking trail frequently used by the public to evict an unregistered building (Gutdang) on his land and argued that he had obtained permission from the district office, resulting in a non-referral decision by the judicial police officer. However, upon the prosecution's instructions to confirm whether permission had actually been granted and to examine the nature of the road, it was found that the suspect had exceeded the permitted scope and had even received a corrective order, and that he had arbitrarily closed a hiking trail used by the general public. The suspect was subsequently brought to trial for obstruction of general traffic and business.

Previously, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office had announced similar cases of reinvestigation. In a traffic accident case that was almost dismissed because the offending vehicle was covered by comprehensive insurance, the prosecution requested a reinvestigation based on the victim's statement recorded in the investigation file. It was revealed that, beyond driver switching, the case involved suspect concealment for the purpose of insurance fraud, resulting in indictment. In the case of defamation against President Lee Jaemyung by the former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Criminal Justice, the prosecution requested a reinvestigation for two non-referral decisions by judicial police officers on May 12, arguing that as the outcome of the defamation occurred within Korea, the court has jurisdiction.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.