'Tongyeong Killer' with 100 Million Won Bounty... Gait Reveals "Flat Foot on the Right"

What is the truth amid countless rumors?

SBS's "Unanswered Questions" (hereinafter referred to as "Unanswered Questions"), broadcast on the 8th, tracked the case of the murder of a woman in her 60s in Tongyeong.

In the early hours of June 10, a horrific murder took place in a rural village in Tongyeong, South Gyeongsang Province.

A woman in her 60s surnamed Seo, the owner of a detached house, was murdered inside her home. The victim, who died after being stabbed in the neck with a weapon, was unable to put up much of a fight, evoking deep sorrow.

However, about two months have passed since the incident, and with the culprit still not apprehended, not only the villagers but the local community are suffering from anxiety.

Under these circumstances, police promised a reward of 100 million won for decisive tips, but there were no tips specific enough to pinpoint a suspect.

The only clue regarding the culprit, who left no DNA or fingerprints anywhere at the scene, was captured on a single CCTV camera outside the house facing the rose tunnel.

However, because the culprit was wearing a hat and a face mask, it was impossible to properly identify their face.

Entering at 12:22 AM and fleeing about 1 hour and 50 minutes later, the culprit vanished leisurely, taking along the murder weapon, the victim's handbag, and a life safety terminal.


The culprit then vanished without being captured by any other CCTVs in the village.

Police presumed that the culprit knew not only the village geography and CCTV locations well, but also the victim, and investigated the victim's grudges and relationships, but found no grounds to pinpoint a suspect.

Following this, various rumors circulated, including contract killing and robbery-purpose murder, and speculations ran wild that the culprit was a foreigner or someone close by. Yet, amidst various rumors and tips, the truth grew increasingly distant.

Two days prior to the incident, the victim's husband, who had been suffering from sleep deprivation after being hospitalized following sinus surgery, returned home and fell into a deep sleep, failing to notice the intruder's presence. In particular, the separate annex where the husband was sleeping was completely isolated from the crime scene.

Regarding the fact that the culprit turned on the hallway light for just two minutes while staying at the scene, police speculated that the culprit was someone well acquainted with the victim's house. Consequently, an informant suspected an electrician previously hired by the victim.

The victim had been personally involved in building the detached house by hiring technicians, during which friction reportedly arose with this electrician. Police investigated him as well, but ruled him out of the suspect list given that he was in his late 50s and ordinarily wore glasses.

Police also investigated all foreigners in the vicinity, but no clues regarding the culprit emerged from anywhere.

The broadcast analyzed the CCTV footage alongside video analysis experts, concluding that the culprit was estimated to be in the mid-170 cm range in height and wearing shoes with a distinctive pattern.


Moreover, through a footwear expert, they were able to identify the model of the shoes worn by the culprit. It turned out to be a product no longer on sale that was popular among people in their 30s and 40s. Additionally, clues were found through their gait suggesting that only the right foot might be flat.

Meanwhile, at the time of death, the victim had her husband's belt wrapped around her hand. While some speculated based on this whether the target was actually the victim's husband, the search for anyone harboring a grudge against the husband also failed.

An expert analyzed the fact that the culprit took away the weapon used, stating, "It is clearly someone with a past criminal record in robbery and theft." They also estimated that the hallway light was turned on by the victim rather than the culprit, at which point she met her demise.

The expert warned, "If it were a matter of grudges or something like that, suspects would have been sorted out long ago. If we view it as a robbery-homicide by someone with geographic familiarity and local ties, we must focus on that. If the direction of the investigation gets distracted, it is a waste of time, and the possibility of a resolution grows increasingly slim."

The broadcast revealed an AI-enhanced montage of the suspect alongside an expert. The suspect was estimated to be a man in his 20s to 30s, or at oldest early 40s, with a slender face and arched eyebrows. In particular, he was estimated to have prominent cheekbones, coarse lines around the nose and mouth, and a wide space between the inner corners of his eyebrows.

He was further presumed to be an individual with a criminal record in robbery and theft who either did not know the victim or had crossed paths with her briefly, having lived in the area for a considerable period and residing or working where he could hear about the victim's recent whereabouts through rumors.

Additionally, it was analyzed that the belt wrapped around the victim's hand was an attempt by the culprit to bind her. The possibility was also raised that he was someone who knew only partially, rather than precisely, where the CCTV cameras were located at the victim's house.

Finally, the broadcast drew attention by pointing out, "The more we try to adapt and embellish the purpose of the crime to fit the results left at the scene, the higher the likelihood that the conclusion will head toward an unsolved case. Blowing the culprit out of proportion like a hitman seen in movies might just be an excuse by someone who let him slip away."


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