Members of a National Office of Investigation special team leave the Gwangju Metropolitan Police Agency on Saturday after conducting a search related to the Jang Yun-gi murder investigation. Photo by Yonhap News Agency
July 12 (Asia Today) — The case of a man accused of killing a high school student in Gwangju has drawn attention to a decades-old provision that can exempt relatives from punishment for destroying evidence to protect a family member.
Investigators found indications that the father of suspect Jang Yun-gi, himself a serving police officer, disposed of items potentially connected to his son’s alleged crime.
Authorities, however, have not booked the father on an evidence destruction charge because South Korean law generally exempts relatives and family members living with a suspect when they destroy evidence on that person’s behalf.
The provision, introduced when South Korea enacted its Criminal Act in 1953, was intended to protect family relationships. Critics say it can now be used as a legal shield to conceal serious crimes.
The National Office of Investigation’s special investigative unit searched seven locations Saturday, including the offices of the Gwangju Metropolitan Police chief and the chief of Gwangju Gwangsan Police Station.
The search warrants cited suspected destruction of evidence, according to police.
Authorities expanded the investigative team from 27 to 41 members following the searches.
Prosecutors and police are examining whether officers involved in the original investigation colluded with Jang’s father or leaked investigative information to him.
Four police officers have been booked so far: the former chief of Gwangsan Police Station, the head of its criminal investigation division, an investigative team leader and another member of the investigative team.
Jang’s father, a police senior inspector, has not been booked on suspicion of destroying evidence despite indications that he discarded his son’s sex doll and cellphone.
Article 155 of the Criminal Act makes it a crime to destroy, conceal, forge or alter evidence in another person’s criminal or disciplinary case.
Paragraph 4 of the article, however, provides that relatives or family members living with the suspect are not punished when they commit the offense on that person’s behalf.
The exemption reflects the view that a person’s desire to protect a relative can arise from natural family affection and that imposing criminal punishment in such cases may be excessively harsh.
The provision was adopted shortly after the 1950-53 Korean War, when many families had been separated or destroyed.
It reflected concerns that the government should not force relatives to inform on one another or intrude excessively into family relationships.
Critics say the 73-year-old provision no longer reflects a society that places greater emphasis on individual accountability and equal justice.
They argue that the problem is particularly serious when a relative works for a law enforcement or judicial agency and may have access to investigative information.
In those circumstances, the exemption could prevent punishment even when a public official destroys evidence that investigators might otherwise use in a criminal case.
The United States and Britain do not provide a comparable blanket exemption from criminal liability solely because a person destroyed evidence to protect a relative.
In the United States, a person who conceals or destroys evidence or lies to investigators to help a family member may face federal or state charges, depending on the conduct and jurisdiction.
A parent, child or spouse is not generally immune from investigation or prosecution solely because of the family relationship.
British law also generally allows authorities to prosecute a person who destroys evidence or interferes with an investigation to help a relative.
A court may consider the family relationship and the offender’s motivation when determining a sentence, but the relationship does not ordinarily exclude the conduct from criminal liability.
South Korean lawmakers have repeatedly proposed abolishing the exemption or narrowing its scope.
A bill introduced in the National Assembly on July 2 would remove the exemptions covering relatives who conceal offenders or destroy evidence. The proposal has been referred to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee.
Bae Sang-hoon, a professor of police administration at Woosuk University, said lawmakers should consider excluding senior public officials and employees of investigative or judicial agencies from the exemption when their official duties create a conflict of interest.
“It is difficult to guarantee public confidence that the investigation and judgment will be conducted fairly,” Bae said. “At a minimum, an exception to the exemption is necessary.”
— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI
© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.
Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260712010004305
