The body believed to be that of Jang Mi-ran was discovered in Jeju after 104 days, intensifying the controversy surrounding the police's initial investigation and missing person management system.
Concerns have escalated among citizens, questioning whether they can trust the police to handle missing person reports, especially after revelations of false closure by the officer in charge.
Jang was reported missing on the night of May 12 after leaving her accommodation. The officer assigned to the case falsely claimed to have contacted Jang, stating she was safe, and closed the case approximately two and a half hours later. Following this, the search for Jang was halted.
Notably, Jang's body was found just over a kilometer from her last known location. Although there were numerous security cameras in the area, the police were unable to secure footage as it had already been deleted after the retention period expired.
At the time of her disappearance, there were 118 surveillance cameras, including 111 security cameras and 7 traffic cameras, in the Hallym-eup area, but footage from May is no longer available. The police only requested access to the footage 96 days after the initial missing person report, on August 19.
According to police, the officer in question has handled and closed 298 missing person reports in the past year. Authorities have begun a comprehensive investigation to determine if there are more cases of false closures. It has already been revealed that another missing person in their 60s was found dead after being falsely closed.
This incident has fueled growing distrust in the police online, especially in light of the earlier 'Jang Yoon-ki case' in Gwangju, raising questions about the police's overall handling of cases and investigative capabilities.
Many netizens expressed their frustration, stating, "It's a lost cause. Now we have to be cautious whenever something happens, wondering if the police will handle it properly. If they treat ordinary cases like this, how can we expect them to investigate politicians? The absence of the prosecution has only benefited politicians," and, "It seems they never intended to find her in the first place."
Others remarked, "She was just left there all summer," and, "It’s obvious they didn’t want to search. How can we trust the police now? This isn’t just one case," while some pointed out that Jang's phone was active for a significant time after her disappearance, questioning the police's initial response.
One user noted, "Even if it was a drastic choice, the fact that her phone was on for about 14 hours after the missing report suggests that if they had acted quickly, there would have been enough time to prevent it. The police are clearly at fault."
Ultimately, the question of whether citizens can trust the police when reporting a missing person has become more pressing. Following the issues raised in both the Jang Yoon-ki and Jang Mi-ran cases, there are increasing calls to examine whether the internal management and oversight mechanisms within the police are functioning effectively.
With the significant reduction in the prosecution's direct investigative authority and the expansion of police powers, discussions about who will monitor and rectify errors or deficiencies in police investigations are becoming unavoidable.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.