Incheon Police Reinvestigate Case of Mother Who Confessed to Killing 102kg Son and Was Acquitted

Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Reporter Park Hyesook] Regarding the case of a 70-year-old mother who confessed to killing her large-built son in his 50s but was acquitted by the Supreme Court, the police have announced plans to reopen the investigation.

On the 6th, Lee Sang-yong, Chief of the Incheon Police Agency, said at a press briefing, "Currently, there is no suspect, only a victim (due to the recent acquittal)," and added, "We will make efforts to find additional clues."

When asked by reporters, "Will you conduct a reinvestigation?" Lee responded, "The police station that conducted the initial investigation should handle it. We will reinvestigate."

Regarding criticism that "the police failed to conduct a proper investigation, resulting in an acquittal," he acknowledged, "Since the incident occurred indoors, the investigation had to rely heavily on testimonies," and admitted, "Our investigation was insufficient."

Mr. A was arrested and prosecuted on charges of killing his son B (52) in April 2020 at their home in Michuhol-gu, Incheon, by hitting his head with a liquor bottle and strangling him with a towel, but was acquitted by the Supreme Court in August this year.

Immediately after the crime, Mr. A called 112 himself, stating "I strangled my son's neck," and consistently testified to his crime in court, but he was acquitted in both the first trial and the appellate trial.

The first trial court stated, "It is questionable whether the elderly defendant could have strangled the victim, who is 173.5 cm tall and weighs 102 kg, with a towel," and judged, "The possibility that a third party was present at the crime scene cannot be excluded, and the defendant may have given false testimony under the pretext of protecting other family members."

The appellate court also pointed out that the room was thoroughly cleaned immediately after the crime and that the behavior of other family members right after the incident was unusual, concluding that neither Mr. A's confession nor the family's testimonies could be trusted, and stated, "The defendant may be the only person who knows the truth about what happened that day," ultimately acquitting him as in the first trial.