
A police officer in the Daejeon area who failed to handle a theft case involving his minor son for nine months is under police investigation on charges of dereliction of duty.
AI-generated summary
The police are implementing a supervising system that allows investigators to avoid cases if a police officer's family member is involved in the case.
(Daejeon = Yonhap News) Reporter Byun Seon-jin = A Daejeon police officer who did not handle a theft case involving his minor son for nine months after being assigned is under police investigation.
The Daejeon Police Agency's Anti-Corruption and Economic Crime Investigation Unit announced on the 11th that it is investigating Inspector A, a member of a Daejeon police station, on charges of dereliction of duty.
Inspector A is accused of failing to handle a case involving minor theft that occurred early this year for nine months after being assigned to it.
Two students were involved in this incident, and one of them was found to be Inspector A's son.
It is known that Inspector A's son's case is classified as a long-term case after 6 months, and long-term cases require an analysis meeting within the team.
During this meeting, it was revealed that Inspector A was in charge of a case involving his son, and an internal employee who recognized this reported it to the hearing audit department, which was reported to be reported to the Daejeon Police Agency last month.
In the wake of the 'Jang Yoon-ki incident', the police have been implementing a supervising system since September, which allows investigators to avoid cases if the police officer's family is involved in the case, but it is known that Inspector A did not apply for avoidance even during the voluntary reporting period.
The police recently dismissed Inspector A from his position and are looking into whether he took on the case even after knowing that his son was involved, or whether he intentionally delayed the investigation.
In addition, digital devices such as Inspector A's work PC will also be forensically examined.
A police official explained, "We decided that the case was serious, so we conducted an investigation immediately in the early stages of the inspection," and added, "Whether or not to discipline will be decided based on the results of the investigation."
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
Decision on whether to discipline Inspector A
Very likely · Within weeks

At around 8:15 pm on the 11th, a gas leak occurred at a factory in Gojan-dong, Namdong-gu, Incheon, and three people showed symptoms of breathing difficulties. Firefighting authorities believe that gas was generated due to a chemical reaction during the injection of microorganisms for wastewater purification and are investigating the exact cause.

Actor Kim Soo-hyun appeared as a witness in the trial of Kim Se-ui, the CEO of Garosero Research Institute, who was indicted on charges of spreading false information about him. Considering the alleged violation of the Sexual Violence Punishment Act, the court conducted the interrogation of witnesses in private, and continued the interrogation with CEO Se-eui Kim removed from office.

An accident occurred at Hansol Paper's Janghangjang plant in Seocheon-gun, South Chungcheong Province, where an employee in his 30s died after being caught in a 2-ton paper roll, and police and labor authorities began an investigation.

A defendant in his 20s, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison in the first trial for killing an innocent man in his 40s under the delusion that his family was the victim of sexual violence, did not appear at the appellate trial due to illness.

Seven executives and employees of a partner company and a corporation that leaked Samsung Display's national core technology and Samsung SDS's factory automation program source code for use in its Chinese business were handed over to trial.

Kim Sang-sik, chairman of the Korea Federation of Port Workers' Unions, who was put on trial on charges of receiving money or valuables in exchange for hiring while serving as chairman of the Busan Port Workers' Union, was acquitted in the first trial. The court judged that it was difficult to trust the branch manager's statement that money and valuables were handed over.