Jeong Jae-hwan (24) reveals his personal information about "Kyungsan's friend's murder."

[26.07.17] Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency Discloses Personal Information of Jeong Jae-hwan (24), 'Gyeongsan Friend Murder' Suspect

The name, age, and mug shot of Jeong Jae-hwan (24), who is suspected of murdering a friend with a weapon while drinking together in Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk, have been officially disclosed.

1. Decision on Disclosure of Personal Information and Progress

The Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency posted the personal information of Jeong Jae-hwan, who is under arrest and investigation for charges including murder, on the notice board of the police agency's website at 9:00 AM on the 16th. The information disclosed this time includes the suspect's name (Jeong Jae-hwan), age (24), and a mug shot recording his current physical appearance, and this information will be made public for 30 days until the 18th of next month in accordance with relevant laws.

Previously, the police held a Personal Information Disclosure Deliberation Committee on the 10th to discuss whether to disclose his identity regarding the case. The committee resolved that the disclosure of information was necessary for the public interest, including crime prevention, acknowledging the gravity of the damage and the cruelty of the crime, and considering that sufficient evidence to prove the crime had been secured. Jeong Jae-hwan raised an objection to this decision on the same day, but as the legally guaranteed five-day grace period elapsed, the disclosure procedure was executed as scheduled.

The suspect personal information disclosure system under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Violent Crimes is implemented for the purpose of preventing crimes and ensuring the public's right to know. The five-day grace period granted to the suspect is a temporary measure to guarantee the right to defense in administrative procedures, and immediately after this period expires, the investigative agency finalizes the administrative order and broadcasts the information through official platforms.

When disclosing a suspect's facial photograph, the police cannot forcibly take a picture if the suspect does not consent, but it was confirmed that Jeong Jae-hwan agreed to the mug shot photography. This disclosure of personal information is one of the major cases of identity disclosure of violent crime suspects decided under the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency this year. Under current law, even if a decision to disclose personal information is made, a suspect can apply for an injunction to suspend execution in court through administrative litigation, but such procedures did not proceed in this case.

The police confirmed the official disclosure of Jeong Jae-hwan's personal information for 30 days following the deliberation committee's resolution and a five-day grace period.

2. Overview of the Incident and the Suspect's Whereabouts

Jeong Jae-hwan is suspected of assaulting and stabbing his 24-year-old friend dozens of times with a weapon, resulting in his death, while they were drinking together at his apartment located in Hayang-eup, Gyeongsan-si, Gyeongbuk, around 4:00 AM on the 4th. It has not been specifically revealed whether there was another party present besides the two at the scene of the incident, but the weapon used in the crime was recovered from the scene and adopted as evidence.

The suspect's whereabouts immediately after the crime showed a very bizarre pattern. Jeong Jae-hwan left the crime scene in a naked state covered in blood and roamed the streets for about an hour. He also entered a nearby convenience store, took out milk, and drank it without paying, and it was confirmed that he changed direction and fled when he spotted a dispatched patrol car. Jeong Jae-hwan, who later returned to his home, was arrested at the scene by police responding to a report from an acquaintance of the victim.

During the police investigation process, Jeong Jae-hwan avoided explaining the specific circumstances by only repeating statements to the effect that he "cannot remember because he was drunk" regarding the motive for the crime. A rapid drug test conducted immediately after his arrest came back negative, and the police, after completing the primary investigation, forwarded the suspect to the prosecution under arrest on murder charges on the 14th.

Multiple CCTVs are installed around the apartment in Hayang-eup where the incident occurred, so the suspect's escape and roaming routes were recorded in detail. The employee of the convenience store Jeong Jae-hwan visited witnessed the suspect's abnormal condition at the time and immediately reported the relevant facts to the competent police precinct. Jeong Jae-hwan, who was escorted to the competent police station right after his arrest, is known to have received assistance from a state-appointed lawyer during the initial investigation process.

Jeong Jae-hwan was arrested after roaming naked immediately after the crime, and claims amnesia due to intoxication.

3. Bereaved Family's Additional Complaint and Controversy Over Police Response

Currently, the investigation into the case is proceeding with additional charges beyond simple murder. The victim's bereaved family submitted a complaint requesting the addition of a charge of mutilating a corpse, claiming that Jeong Jae-hwan intentionally mutilated the body after committing the murder. Accordingly, the violent crime division of the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency is conducting an additional verification based on forensic evidence to see if an actual act of body mutilation existed, separately from the case forwarded with detention on murder charges on the 14th.

In addition to the suspect's criminal acts, the bereaved family is strongly pointing out the police's inadequate initial response. According to a statement distributed on the 13th and CCTV footage disclosed through JTBC's 'Incident Captain', it was revealed that despite Jeong Jae-hwan encountering a dispatched patrol car while roaming the streets completely naked and bloody, the police failed to immediately subdue or arrest him, prompting calls to investigate the circumstances.

Regarding these criticisms, the police stepped forward to explain the facts. The police stated that they were responding to a convenience store-related report at the time and therefore did not recognize the person as a murder suspect. They explained that a separate report of suspected murder was subsequently received, prompting them to re-dispatch to the apartment scene, but it took physical time to immediately identify the suspect as several people were entangled.

The charge of mutilating a corpse, for which the bereaved family filed a complaint, is based on Article 161 of the Criminal Act, which punishes those who mutilate, abandon, conceal, or take possession of a corpse, ashes, or hair. In relation to the controversy over the delayed initial dispatch and suspect misidentification, the police are internally securing and analyzing the radio records of the 112 situation room and the bodycam footage of the dispatched police officers at the time. Separately, a fact-finding investigation at the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency level has been launched internally to review the appropriateness of the initial response to the incident.

There is a confrontation between the bereaved family's additional complaint of corpse mutilation and the police's explanation regarding the controversy of non-arrest when encountering the patrol car.

4. Investigation Progress and Future Procedures

The prosecution, which took over the case, is gathering its investigative power to determine Jeong Jae-hwan's exact motive for the crime based on the records of the murder charges forwarded by the police. Although the suspect consistently claims 'blackout (amnesia)' due to intoxication, the plan is to thoroughly prove intentionality by synthesizing the cruelty of the crime of wielding a weapon dozens of times and the circumstances of the flight immediately afterward.

In particular, the results of the police's separate investigation into the charge of mutilating a corpse raised by the bereaved family are expected to act as a very important variable in future trial processes. If the fact of body mutilation is proven through objective autopsy results and on-site forensics, it is a grave matter that could lead to an aggravated sentence through an amendment to the indictment, so the investigative agency is clarifying the facts by mobilizing all scientific investigation techniques.

Once the prosecution's indictment process is completed in the future, the case will be referred to a formal trial. In accordance with criminal proceedings, whether the suspect was mentally or physically feeble at the time of the crime, premeditation, and circumstances after the crime will be comprehensively addressed, and the issue of the appropriateness of the police's initial on-site response raised by the bereaved family may also be sorted out through the trial or a separate administrative audit.

The competent prosecutor's office investigation team that received the case is intensively analyzing whether the crime was premeditated based on the results of the forensic analysis of the suspect's mobile phone. The prosecution is considering requesting a clinical psychological evaluation from a specialized agency to understand the exact psychological state of the suspect prior to indictment. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecution's period for investigation under detention is up to 20 days, and the final decision on whether to file a public prosecution against Jeong Jae-hwan will be made within that timeframe.

The prosecution is focusing on proving the motive for the crime, and the points of contention in future trials are expected to expand depending on the investigation results of the corpse mutilation charge.

5. Identity Disclosure System and Social Tasks

This decision to disclose Jeong Jae-hwan's personal information is evaluated as a resolute measure to reaffirm the social safety net against cruel violent crimes and to prevent similar crimes. Investigative agencies are actively utilizing the personal information disclosure system based on the gravity of the crime and the clarity of the evidence, and this functions as an institutional device to relieve public anxiety and hold suspects strictly socially responsible.

However, the issue of blind spots in the initial policing system raised at the same time remains a task. The fact that immediate physical custody was not secured even though a bloody, naked person was roaming the streets suggests that information sharing at the 112 general situation room and the on-site response manuals of frontline police precincts must operate more organically.

In addition, there are pointing out that judicial standards should be stricter regarding the pattern of suspects' claims of amnesia citing intoxication repeatedly appearing in violent crimes. The necessity is emerging for courts and investigative agencies to elevate judicial standards, such as meticulously analyzing behavioral patterns before and after the crime to exclude mitigation for intoxication and determine the substantive truth.

In accordance with the 'Act on the Disclosure of Personal Information of Suspects of Specific Heinous Crimes', which took effect in earnest this year, a clear legal basis has been established to disclose a suspect's recent face (mug shot). Prior to the enactment of this law, criticisms were constantly raised that the effectiveness of identity disclosure was low due to the large difference between the suspect's past ID photo and their current appearance. Furthermore, a part of the legal community is continuously demanding specific legislative amendments to exclude the provision on mitigation for mental and physical disorders under the Criminal Act limited to serious violent crimes, in order to fundamentally block controversies over mitigation for intoxication.

Along with the disclosure of personal information for cruel crimes, strengthening policing capabilities, such as inspecting police on-site response manuals, is required.

Category	Key Details
Subject	Jeong Jae-hwan (24 years old)
Applied Charges	Murder (* Charge of corpse mutilation under separate investigation)
Date of Incident	Around 4:00 AM, July 4, 2026
Disclosure Period	July 16, 2026 - August 18 (30 days)
Current Status	Forwarded to prosecution under detention (July 14)

[Case Summary] Gyeongsan Friend Murder Case and Disclosure of Jeong Jae-hwan's Identity

The main investigative and procedural status of Jeong Jae-hwan, the suspect in the murder case that occurred in Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk, is as follows.

• Identity Disclosure: Officially disclosed mug shot, name, and age as of July 16, having met the requirements of the cruelty of the crime and sufficient evidence.
• Incident Details: Murdered a friend with a weapon while intoxicated and arrested after roaming naked; suspect claims 'blackout'.
• Additional Investigation: Separate procedure to confirm charges is underway following the bereaved family's complaint of 'corpse mutilation'.
• Points of Controversy: Confrontation between the bereaved family's raising of an issue and the police's explanation regarding the non-arrest situation when encountering a patrol car immediately after the crime.

Related Tags: Jeong Jae-hwan, Gyeongsan murder case, disclosure of personal information, Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency, mug shot, mutilation of a corpse, July_17_2026