The investigation into the case of Jang Yoon-gi (23), a murderer who killed a high school student, has been revealed to have been conducted negligently, with key evidence ignored or circumstantial evidence suppressed under the orders of the team leader in charge.

While the motive behind the order to ignore evidence remains a matter to be clarified through further investigation, it is difficult to avoid criticism that the police have betrayed the public trust in them as an investigative agency, given the conduct displayed during the handling of the case.

The special investigation team for the 'Jang Yoon-gi Case Truth Finding' under the National Office of Investigation held a briefing on the interim investigation results at the Gwangju Metropolitan Police Agency today (July 15) and categorized the case as one involving 'intentional' negligence.

The team determined that the investigation was flawed throughout the entire process, from the occurrence of the crime to the arrest, detention, and referral to the prosecution. Most evidence and clues that could have established Jang's motive were not properly secured, and key circumstantial evidence was not carefully examined.

The special investigation team apologized, stating that the team leader at the Gwangsan Police Station ordered the suppression of evidence, which resulted in Jang being charged with simple murder instead of murder for the purpose of rape—a crime that carries a minimum sentence of life imprisonment—leaving deep, irreparable wounds on the victim and the bereaved family.

The special investigation team, which launched a belated reinvestigation two months after the incident following allegations of investigative misconduct, pointed to the failure to secure Jang's SUV as one of the grounds for the negligent investigation.

They explained that two bloodstains were found in the SUV that Jang drove before and after the crime, but the vehicle was returned to Jang's father, who is an active-duty police officer, without being seized, thereby missing the opportunity to determine whether the crime was sexually motivated.

Because the bloodstains were found on the door behind the passenger seat rather than the driver's seat, investigators should have looked into whether Jang had kidnapping intentions, but this was ultimately never investigated.

An analysis report suggesting that the SUV's rear door appeared to be open, based on CCTV footage from the time of the crime, was deleted under the team leader's orders. It was rewritten to state that it was 'unclear' whether the door was open, and this altered information was passed on to the prosecution.

Furthermore, zip ties, which could have been used as binding tools and served as evidence to prove the intent of rape, were not secured because the vehicle was handed over to Jang's father the day after the incident.

An official from the special investigation team explained, "Jang's act of strangling the victim just before the murder should be viewed as evidence of the commencement of a rape attempt. When circumstances suggesting a sex crime are discovered during an investigation, they should be referenced or reinvestigated, but the team leader's order to ignore them prevented this."

This is not the only evidence of negligence identified by the special investigation team.

Two 'real dolls' with their private parts repeatedly damaged were found in the bathroom of Jang's studio apartment, but the investigative team at the time did not secure them as physical evidence, which led to the loss of the items that the prosecution identified as evidence of sexual motivation.

In particular, the Gwangsan Police investigative team had 12 phone conversations with Jang's father, during which they disclosed the location of the studio apartment and the door passcode. This led to the destruction of the real dolls and two mobile phones Jang used during his school years, which were burned.

The police also intentionally omitted the DNA analysis report of the real dolls, missing the opportunity to correct the suppression of evidence and the negligent investigation themselves.

The special investigation team is focusing its investigation on whether there was any intervention from the investigative command line or external requests behind the team leader's order to ignore the evidence.

"Through the reinvestigation, we confirmed that the investigative team at the time missed a significant amount of evidence," an official from the special investigation team said. "This resulted in the failure to secure clues to prove the charge of murder for the purpose of rape."

The official added, "As the police themselves missed the opportunity to clarify the crime, we will continue to investigate what judgments were made by the command line during the decision-making process. We deeply apologize for causing irreparable pain to the victim and the bereaved family."