The Prosecutor in Charge at the Time Did Not Appear as a Witness
At the retrial court for the 'Cyanide Makgeolli Murder' case involving a father and daughter in a village in Jeonnam in 2009, a former prosecution investigator testified as a witness, stating that the alleged illegal investigation was due to "lack of capability and competence, not intentional wrongdoing."
According to Yonhap News, the Criminal Division 2 of the Gwangju High Court (Presiding Judge Lee Eui-young) conducted a witness examination of C, the prosecution investigator who investigated the defendants A (75) and his daughter B (41), who were each charged with murder and murder of a direct ascendant, on the 8th during the retrial.
The father and daughter were charged with poisoning two people, including A's wife, by putting cyanide in Makgeolli in Suncheon, Jeonnam, on July 6, 2009, resulting in their deaths, and seriously injuring two other residents.
They were acquitted in the first trial but received life imprisonment and 20 years imprisonment respectively in the second trial. The court decided to commence a retrial of the case in 2022.
C maintained the position that "the investigation was not conducted improperly," based on the daughter's confession at the time, while privately apologizing to the father and daughter. He testified, "When questioning B about why she made a false accusation during the investigation of a sexual assault false accusation case, she confessed that 'she needed a culprit who killed her mother.' However, B later regretted the confession and continued to give unreliable statements, making the investigation difficult."
However, C also expressed grievance, saying, "It is clear that the initial confession was obtained after questioning based on the inference that B could be the culprit," and "During the retrial commencement decision process, the prosecutor and the investigator in charge were demonized due to the defense counsel's claims."
Attorney Park Jun-young, representing the defendants, argued that there were illegal and coercive investigations throughout the prosecution's investigation from the initial stages to the on-site verification.
During the witness examination, it was presented that A was investigated while handcuffed and tied with a rope throughout the investigation process, repeated leading questions were asked, selective recording of suspect interrogations by the prosecution, the investigator's high-handed attitude, various issues with the suspect statement records, and omission of evidence favorable to the defendants.
Attorney Park attempted to prove the coercive investigation against the defendants, who had low intellectual ability or were illiterate, by presenting CCTV footage of the suspect interrogation conducted by the investigator.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
