▲ Police Inspector A, arrested in connection with the Jeju "false missing person case closure" case, is being transferred to the prosecution from the Jeju Dongbu Police Station on the 1st. (Photo: Yonhap News)
The Jeju "false missing person case closure" case sparked a series of questions regarding why Police Inspector A falsely closed the missing person cases.
The Jeju Provincial Police Agency conducted an investigation from August 14, when Police Inspector A was booked, to August 31, a day before forwarding the case, and confirmed that the primary motive for the crime was an evasive approach to avoid work pressure.
At the same time, structural loopholes in the internal control system that failed to screen out the false closures were also exposed.
According to the Jeju Provincial Police Agency on Tuesday, Police Inspector A stated during police questioning, "I thought lightly of it because the missing person was an ordinary adult. There were many things to take care of if the case remained unclosed, so the burden of handing over the case led me to falsely close it."
Police Inspector A was assigned to the Missing Persons Team of the Detective Division at the Jeju Seobu Police Station in March of last year.
It was revealed that Police Inspector A felt burdened by handling tasks alone during night shifts.
The police have previously explained that even if a missing person report is received during a night shift, the burden on individuals is not significant because the following shift takes over the case during handover.
However, investigations showed that Police Inspector A felt burdened by the very process of having to track and hand over the progress of cases to the next working staff if the cases were not closed.
It was also revealed that Inspector A experienced difficulties in requesting support during dispatch situations.
The police stated, "It is partially presumed that there is a deficiency in the ability to solve or cope with problems under stress situations. Inspector A responded very evasively to asking anyone for help or support, which is also partially confirmed by colleagues' statements."
Five profilers (psychological analysts) deployed during the investigation of Police Inspector A also viewed "work-avoidant motives amid accumulated work pressure and fatigue over heavy responsibilities" as the main background of Inspector A's crimes.
They analyzed that Inspector A's evasive coping and irresponsible attitude combined to lead to the crime of false closure.
The police wrapped up the motive for Police Inspector A's crime as "personal deviance."
However, many point out that a lax case closure system fueled Inspector A's crimes.
The Missing Persons Team at the Jeju Seobu Police Station consists of four members, requiring Police Inspector A to work night shifts alone once every four days.
Even if duty logs or computer systems were falsely written while working alone, there was no supervisory control procedure whatsoever to immediately stop or verify it.
In fact, while closing the case of Ms. Chang, a woman in her 30s who had been missing for a long time, Police Inspector A stated in the 112 emergency report system that "contact was made," but entered her as a "traffic accident casualty" in the missing person profiling (police missing person management) system.
Although Inspector A left contradictory records—closing the case on the premise that she was "alive" while entering her as "deceased" in the missing person profiling system—no one noticed.
Ultimately, Police Inspector A did not stop there and falsely closed a missing person case involving a man in his 60s received on July 2 using a method similar to the one used for Ms. Chang.
Unlike the case of Ms. Chang, this time Inspector A entered "whereabouts found" in both the 112 report system and the missing person profiling system, leaving records in the systems.
Regarding this, Police Inspector A stated, "The 112 report regarding the missing man in his 60s was received at 6:02 PM, but since the reporter had visited the police station earlier to consult with another staff member, I entered it as whereabouts found because I thought it would be exposed if I deleted it."
Aware of the possibility that the false closure would be exposed to those around, the crime could be continued because a structural system to screen it out in advance or check it immediately was not in place.
As a result of a primary full-scale investigation into 298 missing person cases handled by Police Inspector A from March of last year to July of this year, the police additionally identified 25 cases suspected of false closure, excluding Ms. Chang and the missing man in his 60s.
The police plan to verify the exact facts regarding these cases while inspecting overall problems in the missing person case-handling process.
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.