Police Claimed Drug Buyer Unbooked Due to Single Continuous Offense Doctrine... But Used as Informant

[Anchor]

Looking at the contents of the letter in question, the police officer concluded that the drug buyer could be handled together with another drug case and thus did not book the suspect, explaining as if they would not do so in the future either. However, according to our reporting, it was revealed that the drug buyer was actually utilized as an informant cooperating with the police's undercover investigation.

Continuing with exclusive reporting by reporter Yoo Soo-Hwan.

[Reporter]

The first letter sent to the prison by the detective in charge at the Songpa Police Station stated, "It was viewed as a single continuous offense with Mr. Lee's other drug case, and was not recognized separately."

This means they judged that the case could be handled by bundling it with Mr. A's previous different crime.

However, drug investigation experts pointed out that this case is an instance where the legal principle of a single continuous offense cannot be applied.

[Shin Al-chan / Drug Specialist Attorney (Sedam Law Firm): It is difficult to apply the single continuous offense doctrine to drug trafficking. (Usually) they are each punished as concurrent crimes. It seems to be quite an independent view by the police officer....]

Furthermore, since the seller, Mr. No, had already had the evidence proven and was serving prison time, experts noted that in this case, there seemed to be no room for further investigation into the counterpart buyer.

Because of this, Mr. No's side claimed that the police intentionally conducted a lenient investigation favoring one side. According to SBS reporting, it was confirmed that Mr. Lee actually cooperated with the police investigation during the process of apprehending Mr. No.

Except for the first attempted charge among Mr. No's three charges, the remaining two were police undercover operations, and Mr. Lee stepped 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 did not book Mr. Lee for over two years and only recently booked him was "merely a coincidence in timing" and not because of complaints filed by Mr. No.

They stated, "The mention regarding the single continuous offense was a mistake made by a detective unfamiliar with legal principles."

[Shin Al-chan / Drug Specialist Attorney (Sedam Law Firm): Prosecutors do not have the authority to initiate investigations into simple drug administration and trafficking cases. Only the police can investigate these cases, meaning that even if an investigation that lets someone off occurs, no one can check it.]

Improper dealings between informants and investigative team detectives in drug cases have consistently been a source of controversy.

On the 10th, a police inspector belonging to the Seoul Gwangjin Police Station was also suspended from duty and placed under investigation on charges of leaking investigative information to a drug suspect whom they used as an "informant."

(Photo: Yonhap News)
(Video Reported by Yang Hyun-chul, Lee Sang-hak | Video Edited by Lee Sang-min)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.