Ruling party lawmakers protest rejection of warrant in probe of former councilor accused of exploiting middle school student

Ruling party lawmakers visited the Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office on Monday to urge a thorough investigation into a former Cheongju City Council member suspected of sexually exploiting a middle school student. The group, including Seo Young-kyo, chairperson of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and other Democratic Party members, along with Son Sol of the Progressive Party, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the court's rejection of a warrant for communication records.

“

The core of the investigation is to check communication records, and it is incomprehensible that the warrant requested by the police was rejected.

"The core of the investigation is to check communication records, and it is incomprehensible that the warrant requested by the police was rejected," Seo stated. The lawmakers questioned whether external forces influenced the decision and called for an examination of any obstacles hindering the police investigation. They expressed concern that evidence might be disappearing daily and that the suspect might be attempting to influence the victim.

“

We have to check objectively whether the power of other external forces was at play. We also need to look into what kind of wall has blocked the police investigation.

In response, Kim Ji-hye, deputy prosecutor at the Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office, held a press conference to explain the situation. She stated that the warrant rejection was a request for supplementation due to deficiencies in the police's initial application, which listed the suspect's occupation as 'company employee' and omitted details about items to be seized and locations like the Cheongju City Council. Kim emphasized that such requests for supplementation are common and do not indicate any intent to downplay the case.

“

The request for supplementation is a common occurrence, and there was no intention to scale down the investigation.

Regarding the communication warrant, Kim explained that while a three-month period overlaps with the alleged crime, such warrants only confirm call reception and transmission, which are insufficient as evidence for sexual offenses. She stressed the importance of digital evidence and questioned the necessity of communication records for identifying additional victims. Prosecutors stated they would consider a renewed application from the police if deficiencies are addressed. The prosecution also clarified that a decision to withdraw a detention warrant was made in consultation with the police, emphasizing their cooperative relationship rather than a hierarchical one.

“

This alone cannot be evidence of a sexual crime. What is important is digital evidence.