The police are embroiled in controversy for conducting an intimidating investigation against an 87-year-old elderly person.

Furthermore, reporters visiting to verify the truth of the controversy were made to wait for 6 hours in the parking room, civil petition room, etc., leading to criticism that the police's media response method leaves much to be desired.

According to Jungbu Ilbo's reporting on the 22nd, A (87), who claims to be a victim, reported to the Gyeonggi Western Senior Protection Agency in early June that her two daughters had taken away her jeonse deposit and savings, and the agency accused B and C of violating the Welfare of Senior Citizens Act at the Bucheon Ojeong Police Station.

Afterwards, in mid-June, A appeared at the Bucheon Ojeong Police Station to complete her investigation, and she claims that she suffered a major shock due to the investigating officer's intimidating words and actions during the process.

While the Bucheon Ojeong Police Station stated that "it is not true" regarding the claim that the investigating officer showed an intimidating attitude during the investigation of the 87-year-old elderly complainant, A's side has requested an inspection petition to demand a truth-finding investigation.

Afterward, to check the facts of A's tip, reporters directly visited the Bucheon Ojeong Police Station at around 9:20 a.m. on the 20th and requested an interview with the investigating officer in charge.

However, the interview did not take place because the investigating officer was on vacation, and the police guided that the head of the detective division is in charge of media responses related to the case, asking them to wait for a separate response.

After waiting for a response at the police station for about 6 hours, the reporters were able to have a phone call with the head of the detective division.

Even after waiting for a long time in the civil petition room and parking lot, the opportunity to directly check the investigating officer's position was not provided, leaving regret over whether the police's media response method was appropriate.

In a phone call at around 3 p.m., the head of the detective division stated, "As a result of checking with the investigating officer, there is absolutely no truth to the claim that they slammed the table or conducted an intimidating investigation."

However, regarding A's claim that the officer "reprimanded [them] in a loud voice," they explained, "Since elderly people often have poor hearing, voices may get louder during the investigation process."

Accordingly, to hear a direct explanation from the investigating officer who conducted the investigation at the time, connection was requested, but the head of the detective division replied, "I am in charge of media responses, and I cannot directly connect you with the investigating officer."

However, checking the direct position of the person involved is a standard reporting procedure.

A's side rebutted the police's explanation, stating, "It wasn't just a matter of a generally raised voice; there were intimidating actions in the investigation room, such as slamming the table."

The National Police Agency's directive, 'Police Officer Job Rules for Human Rights Protection,' stipulates that when investigating crime victims and the socially underprivileged, human rights must be protected as the top priority, and an investigation environment considering psychological stability must be created for investigation subjects who have difficulty communicating, such as the elderly.

A's side is preparing an inspection petition against the police officer in question. As the claims of A's side and the police's explanation conflict, the appropriateness of the investigation method at the time is expected to be judged during the fact-finding process.

[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]