Exclusive: Behind the 'Damaged Real Doll' Evidence Destroyed by Father of Murder Suspect

00:00 Intro
00:40 Why is the 'real doll' destroyed by Jang Yoon-gi's father considered key evidence?
02:04 How does the police investigation team explain missing the motive of sexual assault?
03:24 What is the difference between murder and rape-murder?
03:59 Poor police investigation: Protecting their own?
04:54 Jang Yoon-gi's father destroyed evidence, but cannot be punished?


It was in the early hours of May 5. A high school girl, who was a complete stranger, was kidnapped and murdered with a weapon on a pedestrian path in Wolgye-dong, Gwangsan-gu, Gwangju. The perpetrator is 23-year-old Jang Yoon-gi.

[Jang Yoon-gi/Murder Suspect: (How do you feel right now?) I am sorry. (Why did you target the woman you were stalking? What was the motive for the crime?) ......]

Jang Yoon-gi was apprehended 11 hours after the crime and consistently claimed during the investigation that it was an impulsive act committed while he was contemplating suicide. However, controversy has reignited following our SBS report that Jang's father, a police official in the Gwangju region, destroyed key evidence.

1. Why is the 'real doll' destroyed by Jang Yoon-gi's father considered key evidence?
A real doll is an adult product modeled after the human body. Jang Yoon-gi's father, an active police official, reportedly dismantled and discarded it. Two real dolls were found at Jang's residence, and real dolls themselves are not illegal. They could be seen as simple adult products. The problem, however, is that traces of damage were found on the neck and chest areas of the dolls. It suggests that the adult products were not used solely for their intended purpose. In that case, it becomes difficult for investigators to avoid linking this sexual aspect to the grave crime of murder. Since there is a significant difference in sentencing between general murder and rape-murder, which involves a sexual motive, the damaged real doll inevitably becomes key evidence to clarify this sexual component. Of course, the prosecution did not conclude that a sexual crime was involved based solely on this; they reportedly grasped the situation broadly through black box recordings and statements from acquaintances regarding things Jang used to say. For instance, he allegedly made remarks such as, "I should kidnap a high school girl in a van," or "The woman who appeared in front of me is pitiful."

2. How does the police investigation team explain missing the motive of sexual assault?
The police forwarded the case to the prosecution applying only the charge of general murder, as claimed by Jang Yoon-gi. However, the prosecution determined that there was a motive for sexual assault prior to the murder, and after supplementary investigations, changed the charge to rape-murder before sending it to trial. The police did discover the real dolls at Jang's residence. However, they explained to us that "they did not seize them because they saw no direct relevance to the murder." It appears they may have focused solely on the act of murder itself, failing to look deeper into the motive, which is a crucial part of uncovering the truth. Furthermore, the police failed to secure the black box SD card from Jang's vehicle. When asked why, they explained that they did attempt to secure it, but the SD card was already missing from the black box. However, the prosecution found an SD card in the trunk of the same vehicle. While it was not the specific SD card the police were looking for, the fact that they secured another SD card as key evidence from the vehicle makes it difficult for the police to avoid criticism that there were many loopholes in their initial investigation.

3. What is the difference between murder and rape-murder?
Although both are murder, the key difference lies in the minimum statutory penalty depending on the motive. In the case of the general murder charge applied by the police, the minimum statutory penalty—the lowest sentence a judge can impose if the charge is recognized—is only 5 years in prison. However, the charge of rape-murder, which includes a sexual crime, carries a minimum sentence of life imprisonment. This means that if the court finds him guilty, Jang Yoon-gi will be sentenced to either life imprisonment or the death penalty.

4. Poor police investigation: Protecting their own?
It raises suspicions. First, as we reported exclusively yesterday, the case was investigated by the police station where Jang Yoon-gi's father previously worked. This means there is a professional connection, though it cannot be concluded based on that alone. The problem, however, is that as our reporting and various media outlets have already widely covered, the police failed to perform even the most basic investigative steps during the actual process. It even reached a point where the suspect's father destroyed evidence. In any case, the police also deemed the matter serious and have launched an inspection at the level of the National Police Agency and the National Office of Investigation. Since they have begun an inspection into the misconduct of Jang's father and whether there were issues during the investigation, we will have to wait and see.

5. Jang Yoon-gi's father destroyed evidence, but cannot be punished?
That is correct; he cannot be punished for destroying evidence alone. This is because under current law, there is a special provision that exempts family members or relatives from punishment if they destroy evidence related to a case. To punish an act as a crime, one must consider whether it meets the constituent elements of a crime, whether it is illegal, and whether the person can be held accountable. While the act of Jang Yoon-gi's father meets the constituent elements of a crime and is illegal, his accountability is excluded under the special provision, making legal punishment impossible. Legally, this is expressed as "no expectation of different behavior." Even if a crime is committed, it is difficult to expect that a family member would not destroy evidence; in other words, since it is a human instinct to protect one's family even through the destruction of evidence, it is difficult to hold them legally responsible even if the act is illegal. However, Minister of Justice Jeong Sung-ho stated after our initial report that it is worth reviewing whether this special provision needs to be improved to align with the trends of the times.

Reported by Shin Yong-il | Produced by Shin Hee-sook | Video by Hwang Se-hoe and Park Woo-jin | Video Editing by Ryu Ji-soo | Graphics by Yook Do-hyun | Produced by SBS Digital News



※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.