[Anchor]
A drug dealer serving time in prison has filed a prison petition asking why the buyer who purchased drugs from him is not being punished. In response, the detective in charge sent handwritten letters directly to the prison, and our reporting team obtained these letters, which contain controversial details.
First, an exclusive report by reporter Dong Eunyeong.
[Reporter]
The ruling of 53-year-old Roh, who has been serving time in prison since February of last year for illegal methamphetamine trading, repeatedly features another man named Lee.
Lee is an individual who attempted to buy methamphetamine from Roh in January of the year before last by paying 1.1 million won but failed, bought methamphetamine for 3.2 million won in February of the same year, and received a free sample of methamphetamine the following month.
Realizing that unlike himself, who has been serving time for nearly a year and a half, Lee had not faced any punishment or even been booked, Roh filed petitions with the Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission and the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office this past April.
[Shin Al-chan / Lawyer: "When drugs are traded, there is never a case where one side is exempt from punishment. It means that for over two years, he wasn't even booked and didn't hold the status of a suspect. That is practically covering something up in the shadows."]
Then, in less than a week, a letter arrived at the prison. The sender was none of other than the detective from the narcotics investigation team at the Seoul Songpa Police Station who investigated the case involving Roh and Lee.
The detective wrote in the letter that because Lee was being investigated for another drug case around a similar time, "it was viewed as a comprehensive single crime and a separate case was not recognized."
Unconvinced by this explanation, Roh filed another petition, prompting the detective to send another letter to the prison.
The stance had completely reversed from the letters sent three weeks prior, stating, "We are conducting a pre-booking investigation regarding Lee" and "Please take note as we will provide intermediate notifications on the progress of the investigation."
A week later, the final letter stated, "We plan to forward Lee's case to the prosecution within this month" and "There is no longer any need to submit a written petition."
According to SBS reporting, the Seoul Songpa Police Station actually forwarded Lee's case to the prosecution in mid-May. Controversy is growing as it has been revealed that the police failed to even book an individual with confirmed drug-related charges for more than two years since the incident occurred.
(Photo: Yonhap News / Video by Lee Sang-hak / Video Editing by Kim Yun-sung / Design by Park Chun-woong)
[Anchor]
Looking at the contents of the questionable letters, the police officer in question judged that the drug buyer could be handled together with another drug case and thus did not book him, explaining that they would not do so in the future either. However, our reporting team's investigation revealed that the drug buyer had been utilized as an informant cooperating with undercover police operations.
Continuing with exclusive reporting by reporter Yu Suhan.
[Reporter]
The first letter sent to the prison by the detective in charge at the Songpa Police Station stated, "It was viewed as a comprehensive single crime along with Lee's other drug case, and a separate case was not recognized."
This means they judged the case could be handled by bundling it with Roh's prior crimes.
However, narcotics investigation experts pointed out that this case is not one where the legal doctrine of a comprehensive single crime can be applied.
[Shin Al-chan / Narcotics Specialist Lawyer (Law Firm Sedam): "(Drug trading) is difficult to apply a comprehensive single crime doctrine to. (Usually) they are each punished as concurrent crimes. It seems to be quite an independent view held by the police officer...."]
Furthermore, since the seller, Roh, already had his guilt proven and is serving a prison term, it appears there would be no situation requiring further investigation into the counterpart buyer, according to experts.
Because of this, Roh's side claimed that the police intentionally conducted a selective investigation shielding one party. According to SBS reporting, Lee actually cooperated with police investigations during the process of apprehending Roh.
Except for the first attempted crime among Roh's three charges, the remaining two were undercover police operations, and Lee stepped forward into the drug transaction at the request of the police at the time.
While admitting to these facts to the SBS reporting team, the Songpa Police Station explained that the reason they failed to book Lee for over two years and only recently booked him was not because of Roh's petition, but simply because "the timing happened to overlap by coincidence."
They stated, "The mention regarding the comprehensive single crime was a misstatement by a detective lacking legal familiarity."
[Shin Al-chan / Narcotics Specialist Lawyer (Law Firm Sedam): "The prosecution has no authority to recognize simple drug use and trading cases. Only the police can investigate these cases, and even if an investigation that shields someone occurs, no one can keep it in check."]
Improper transactions between informants and investigative detectives in drug cases have continuously been a source of controversy.
On the 10th as well, a police inspector belonging to the Seoul Gwangjin Police Station was relieved of his duties and placed under investigation on charges of leaking investigative information to a drug suspect he used as an "informant."
(Video by Yang Hyun-chul and Lee Sang-hak / Video Editing by Lee Sang-min)
[Anchor]
Let's discuss this further with reporter Dong Eunyeong from the Social Affairs Department who covered this matter.
Q. Not booked because he was an informant?
[Dong Eunyeong: "Drug crimes are basically dark figure crimes, meaning most of them take place covertly in the shadows. The reality is that investigative agencies have no choice but to rely on tips from informants often called 'opposition sources.' However, narcotics case experts emphasize that even if someone is an informant, there is never a case where illegal activities discovered before an undercover operation go unbooked. In drug transactions outside of police undercover operations, even if an attempt fails, it is considered an illegal act, and all related parties must be booked immediately upon recognizing the case. Since informant Lee should naturally have been treated this way as well, the police failing to even book Lee simply because he served as an informant in the subsequent two undercover operations is bound to become controversial."]
Q. Covering a prison-related case... What are the details?
[Dong Eunyeong: "An acquaintance of Roh, who received letters from Roh while he was serving time, tipped off our reporting team. Roh is known to have helped apprehend serial killer Yoo Young-chul in the early 2000s, serving as the model for the protagonist Eom Jung-ho in the movie 'The Chaser.' Through his close associates, Roh expressed that while he would willingly accept the punishment for the sins he committed, he argued that it was wrong for the police to take sides and punish only one party while sparing the other."]
(Video Editing by Lee Sang-min)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.