It has been revealed that the police missed an opportunity to detain a public official in his 30s who repeatedly subjected his wife to domestic violence and eventually tracked her down and killed her after she fled to another residence.

The police requested an arrest warrant without including the primary criminal charge of special intimidation—citing the victim's lack of intent to punish—and consequently failed to secure his detention.

As a result, criticism is expected to be unavoidable given that the suspect, left unsworn and un-detained, committed the horrific murder.

According to media reports yesterday (Sept. 2), the Suwon Jangan Police Station in Gyeonggi Province, which has jurisdiction over the original residence of the 30-year-old female victim A, received a total of four domestic violence reports and counseling requests from March of last year to May of this year.

Looking at the timeline by date, there was a 112 report for assault on March 11 of last year (1st), a visit to the police box for marital dispute counseling on April 20 of this year (2nd), a 112 report for special intimidation on April 22 of this year (3rd), and a 112 report for intimidation on May 28 of this year (4th).

Among them, the police were dispatched on May 28, the date of the 4th report, after receiving a report from victim A stating, "My husband is shouting verbal abuse."

At the time, as the husband, B, physically assaulted a police officer by kicking him, the police arrested B on the spot for obstruction of official duties.

Subsequently, upon concluding the investigation into B on June 12, the police applied for a pre-trial detention warrant while omitting the previous domestic violence charges, listing only the obstruction of official duties charge for striking the police officer.

The police explained that because the victim, A, did not want her husband—who is a current public official—to be punished, they inevitably excluded the domestic violence incidents from the criminal charges.

However, regarding the incident on the 3rd report date where B threatened his wife with a weapon, the act falls under "special intimidation" and is not an offense subject to punishment against the victim's will. Therefore, the case could have been processed regardless of A's intent not to punish.

Despite this, the police requested an arrest warrant while excluding domestic violence, a relational crime with a high risk of reoffending. Ultimately, the warrant was rejected (dismissed) at the prosecution stage without even reaching the court.

While it may be a hindsight observation, had the police requested a pre-trial detention warrant by adding the special intimidation charge to the obstruction of official duties at the time, a warrant for B would likely have been issued, allowing him to remain detained until now, and this incident might not have occurred.

The statutory penalty for special intimidation is imprisonment for up to 7 years or a fine of up to 10 million won, which is heavier than the crime of obstruction of official duties (imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 10 million won). Furthermore, combining the two separate cases would have increased culpability.

An official from the Suwon Jangan Police Station explained, "Given that the victim was expressing her intent not to punish, we judged that forcefully applying the special intimidation charge carried a high risk of leading to the warrant's rejection," adding, "Therefore, we omitted it from the criminal charges on the arrest warrant application but wrote down the past domestic violence circumstances in detail as a consideration in our effort to have the arrest warrant issued as much as possible."

However, experts point out that the police should have completed the investigation into the special intimidation case and drafted a more complete pre-trial detention warrant application by listing all applicable charges.

Cho Yong-hyun, an attorney at Law Firm Klass-Hankyul and a former presiding judge at the Seoul High Court, said, "It is difficult to understand why the crime of special intimidation is not subject to punishment against the victim's will, yet they booked the perpetrator under that very charge and failed to reflect it in the charges for the arrest warrant application." He added, "Had they completed the investigation into the special intimidation case and added the charge, there would have been a high probability of the arrest warrant being issued."

A current judge at a regional court stated, "Even if you state opinions on the suspect in the arrest warrant application such as 'under investigation' or 'prone to violence,' it does not significantly influence the warrant review," and asked, "If it is not a criminal fact specified in the warrant, how could authorities such as the prosecution or the court know whether those opinions are true, especially when guilt has not been finalized and investigation records cannot be viewed?"