Why did A head for a shared lodging that day··· A reconstruction of the murder of a teenage girl in Seongbuk - 경향신문

This article was translated by an AI tool. Feedback Here.

On the 11th, police tape was set up at a lodging in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, where the murder of a teenage girl occurred. Reporter Kim Tae-uk

The case of the teenage victim A killed in Seongbuk, Seoul is increasingly slipping into a mystery. B, in his fifties, who was arrested on suspicion of murder, is reportedly continuing to remain silent about the circumstances and motive. B did not appear at the substantive review of the arrest warrant held in court on the 13th, and the court issued the warrant, stating “there is a risk of evidence being destroyed.” Three days after B was arrested on the 11th, the police have not been able to provide even a basic account of the motive or sequence of events. This has fueled speculation that there may be some other background to the crime.

The bereaved family is said to be pointing to C, in her twenties, who was in a de facto marriage with B, as the force behind the incident. They contend that C’s gaslighting (psychological control) manipulated A, B, and DB’s son who had only just come of ageand led to what happened. Accordingly, centering on the family’s accounts, we have attempted to reconstruct the case.

According to the family’s accounts, A and D were indeed in a dating relationship. In January, A’s parents filed a complaint against D on suspicion of statutory rape of a minor. Statutory rape is punishable regardless of whether the parties consent. However, it is understood that the complaint against D was not intended to have him punished. There was a single reason: to separate C from A.

A is believed to have first met C in early January this year, when A first ran away from home. After leaving home, A called D and spent time with him, and in that process appears also to have met C, who was then acting as D’s guardian. The family says that from that point C’s gaslighting of A and D began.

According to these accounts, A’s parents were aware of A and D’s relationship and, in some respects, had permitted it. It is said that A’s parents even spent time together with the two. The problem was C. Believing that C had incited A to commit crimes such as theft, A’s parents filed a police complaint against C in June. The police deemed there was probable cause and sought an arrest warrant in July, but prosecutors at the time rejected the request, calling for supplementary investigation. The plan to separate C from A fell through.

It is also reported that one factor behind the initial rejection of C’s warrant was A’s wavering statements. C knew that A liked D very much and may have used that in gaslighting A. After A, who had been drifting between shelters and protection facilities since leaving home, returned home, C and D persistently urged her via Telegram to come out of the house. The Telegram chat room including A, C, and D, which was made public by the family, contains related exchanges.

The messages show C and D telling A that if she left home and married D, the problem would be resolved. The implication appears to be that D could avoid punishment for statutory rape of a minor in that way. C talks about how much it would cost to get married and even says that a local government would provide housing and living-expense support. Hearing this, A felt relieved. It was unmistakably the tone of a fifteen-year-old middle schooler.

After much deliberation, A’s parents placed her in a juvenile classification and assessment center. That was in early September. It is said they sought to separate her physically after failing to keep C away from her. A stayed there for about two months, until November 3. Living cut off from the outside, she gradually regained psychological stability. The letter A wrote to her parents, which some media outlets published, was written during this period. It is also said that at the police she gave a statement about C’s criminal acts again, this time ‘properly’. Because she did well at the center, A received a model ‘Class 1 disposition’ and was released.

After leaving the center, A reportedly clashed with her parents again over use of her mobile phone. A’s parents were extremely worried that she would contact C again by phone. The conflict was not resolved, and A eventually returned to a shelter. A week later, on the 10th, she was killed by B at a shared-lodging accommodation in Seongbuk-gu.

The family is said to believe that B’s motive for killing A is unclear. The two sides had never discussed a settlement over the statutory-rape complaint against D, and above all, there was almost no ‘point of contact’ between B and A. The family says they did not even know of B’s existence. A is known to have changed phones several times while moving between shelters. On that basis, it is not likely that B knew A’s new contact information. Why A went to the lodging that was the ‘crime scene’ is the first question this case needs to clarify.

Against this backdrop, the family is reportedly questioning whether B also committed the crime as a result of being continuously gaslit by C. That, they say, is why B is unable to give a clear statement about his motive. If, while at the center, A gave a statement about C’s criminal activities ‘properly’, the person disadvantaged by that testimony would be C. Two days before the incident, on the 8th, the police had re-applied for an arrest warrant for C. The person who booked the shared lodging that became the crime scene was C, and the person who first reported the crime was also C.

At present, the idea that C is behind the case is nothing more than one-sided speculation. Even if C’s gaslighting is the background, it will not be easy to prove that through an investigation. A is already deceased, and B is not opening up at all about his motive. D, who is entangled with C in parts of the case and, according to the family’s account, may himself be a victim of gaslighting, is also unlikely to reverse his position and come forward to testify.