The story we want to share with you today is from the episode broadcast on July 2, 2026, titled "Four Kidnappers – Who is Lying?" Joining as story buddies were AND2BLE member ZHANG HAO, singer SOYOU, and actor Park Tam-hee. (In line with the show's unique style, this review is written in an informal, conversational tone.)
▲ Eun-ji Has Vanished
The date is October 10, 1994, at a home in Busan. A housewife, Mrs. Kim, keeps staring out the window. Her 10-year-old daughter, Eun-ji (pseudonym), has not returned home yet. Eun-ji, a third-grader, usually comes home from school around 1:00 PM. But on this day, she is still missing even as 4:00 PM approaches. Just then, the phone rings.
"If you want to find Eun-ji, listen to me carefully. Bring 'two sheets' of cash to the Busan Theater by 2:30 PM the day after tomorrow."
Eun-ji had been kidnapped. However, the "two sheets" of cash the kidnapper demanded was not 20 million won, but 2 million won. Usually, kidnapping is a planned crime aiming for a large sum of money, but in 1994, 2 million won was worth less than 5 million won in today's value. The kidnapper did not ask for a massive fortune.
Furthermore, Eun-ji's father was an ordinary office worker. Their family was not wealthy enough to be targeted for a crime. So, why did the kidnapper target Eun-ji?
Upon receiving the report, the police immediately tracked Eun-ji's last known movements. While canvassing the school area with the child's photo, an eyewitness emerged. It was So-young (pseudonym), Eun-ji's friend from the same after-school academy.
"Eun-ji was walking over there with an older girl earlier. She had long, straight hair."
Around 1:00 PM on the day of her disappearance, she saw a young woman in her 20s walking with Eun-ji. Crucially, Eun-ji was smiling at the time. Hearing this, the detectives' eyes sharpened.
"If she was smiling as they walked by, 'she definitely wasn't a stranger; she must have known her well.' If it was someone she knew well, we believed there was a high possibility it was a relative."
- Case Detective
The detectives checked if any of Eun-ji's relatives lived in the direction the two had headed. It turned out Eun-ji's maternal aunt lived there. The young woman in her 20s seen by the witness matched Eun-ji's maternal cousin, who was in her 20s.
Her name was Na Kyung-ae (pseudonym). She was a 20-year-old student preparing for college entrance exams, and she had long, straight hair. Was the woman walking with Eun-ji really her cousin, Na Kyung-ae? The next day, the police brought her in for voluntary questioning.
"Me, Eun-ji?! That makes no sense!"
- Na Kyung-ae
Na Kyung-ae vehemently denied it. Just as the detectives began to doubt her, someone made an urgent phone call. It was Na Kyung-ae's father.
"When I came home, the house was a mess. The police were coming and going. I was so out of it that I first sat down in Kyung-ae's room. As I slowly gathered my thoughts, I kept smelling a strange odor. It was the smell of decomposition. Goosebumps broke out all over me, and I thought, 'Ah, something is wrong here.'"
- Na Kyung-ae's father
The source of the horrifying stench was a blanket bundle inside the room. That night, the police discovered Eun-ji's body wrapped in a blanket bundle inside Na Kyung-ae's room.
Only then did she confess to the crime. Even more shocking was that she had murdered the child on the very day of the kidnapping. While her family was away, she hid the body in her house. However, this was not the only secret Na Kyung-ae revealed.
"Hyun-woo oppa suggested we kidnap her just to get the money. I really had no intention of killing her."
- Na Kyung-ae
She claimed she had accomplices. Here is the horrific story of that day as told by Na Kyung-ae.
▲ Four Kidnappers
His name was Choi Hyun-woo (pseudonym), a 23-year-old office worker. Na Kyung-ae claimed he was the one who initially planned the crime, making him the mastermind. And there were more accomplices.
Her name was Shin Yu-ri (pseudonym). She was Na Kyung-ae's high school classmate and best friend. Unlike Na Kyung-ae, who was preparing for college entrance exams again, Yu-ri had entered college that year. Na Kyung-ae, Shin Yu-ri, and Choi Hyun-woo reportedly knew each other beforehand. And there was one more.
His name was Jung Il-soo (pseudonym). He was a 23-year-old restaurant owner and a neighborhood friend brought in by Choi Hyun-woo.
Why did these young adults, who had just entered society and were seemingly living normal lives attending school and work, commit such a crime? It was because of this incident.
The "Jijonpa," a criminal organization that shocked South Korea in 1994. Claiming to hate the wealthy, they built a murder factory and killed innocent people with absolute brutality. On October 9, 1994, the day before the crime, when the four first conspired, Na Kyung-ae claimed Choi Hyun-woo said this:
"Did you guys see the news about the Jijonpa? We're bored, so why don't we pull off a job too? My mom said she won't give me money for a while."
- Choi Hyun-woo
In reality, except for Na Kyung-ae, the other three came from wealthy families. Yet, they allegedly planned the crime out of curiosity after watching the Jijonpa news. They committed a horrific copycat crime simply to make money for entertainment.
The next day, the four lured Eun-ji on her way home from school and put her in a pre-arranged car. They could have returned the child after receiving the ransom, so why did they murder Eun-ji? According to Na Kyung-ae, Shin Yu-ri argued:
"The kid saw our faces. What if she goes home and tells everyone? Let's just get rid of her."
- Shin Yu-ri
Ultimately, the four decided to kill Eun-ji. They parked the car in a suitable spot, and Na Kyung-ae and Shin Yu-ri got out to keep watch. Then, Choi Hyun-woo strangled Eun-ji inside the car. Afterward, Jung Il-soo wrapped the body in a blanket bundle and put it in the trunk. The next day, they moved the body to Na Kyung-ae's house. This was Na Kyung-ae's claim.
Based on Na Kyung-ae's statement, the police arrested the three accomplices. Following the Jijonpa case, the entire nation was shocked once again.
▲ Conflicting Statements
However, at that very moment, another place was in an uproar for a different reason. It was the Busan Maeil Shinmun, one of the three major newspapers in Busan at the time. It was the only one among the three to publish a morning paper. However, the previous evening, other newspapers had scooped them by reporting the story first.
"Back then, the concepts of scoops and missed stories were incredibly strong. If we missed even a minor traffic accident or a non-fatal incident during coverage and got scooped, we faced immense criticism."
- Kim Hyung-jin, then-reporter for the Busan Maeil Shinmun's social affairs department
Having missed such a massive scoop, the newspaper office was turned upside down. A special coverage team was quickly assembled, and Reporter Kim and his colleagues rushed to the police station handling the case. By pleading with a friendly detective, they managed to speak with one of the kidnappers: Na Kyung-ae's classmate, Shin Yu-ri.
However, Shin Yu-ri did nothing but cry silently in front of the reporter. Just as they were about to leave empty-handed, Shin Yu-ri spoke up.
"I... I really didn't do it. I was taking a typing exam that day!"
- Shin Yu-ri
She claimed she had absolutely nothing to do with the case. Shin Yu-ri provided an alibi, stating she was taking a typing exam at school on the day of the crime.
"During the investigation, when asked, 'What did you do yesterday? Why did you participate in the crime?' she replied, 'I was at school at that time. I did not participate in the crime.'"
- Kim Hyung-jin, then-reporting reporter
The reporters rushed to Shin Yu-ri's school to verify the facts. As it turned out, it was true that there was a typing exam on the day of the crime. One of Shin Yu-ri's classmates said:
"While taking the exam, my paper slipped and tore, so I spent that time just looking at the friend next to me. Since Yu-ri was sitting right next to me, I looked at her, and she looked back at me and smiled. That's how it was."
- Shin Yu-ri's classmate
Reporter Kim collected written statements from Shin Yu-ri's classmates. The statements contained detailed eyewitness accounts, such as, "I saw Shin Yu-ri sitting in her seat, around the middle of the first row," "I saw Shin Yu-ri walking down the stairs after the typing exam," and "When I turned around to borrow a stapler from a student in the back, I saw Yu-ri sitting there." One student even drew a seating chart of the typing exam to testify that Shin Yu-ri was present at the scene.
With this level of detail, was Shin Yu-ri's alibi of taking a typing exam at school on the day of the crime true?
Shin Yu-ri's alibi of being at school on the day of the crime was an exclusive scoop obtained by the Busan Maeil Shinmun. But just then, a middle-aged man visited the newspaper office, pleading, "Please help me." This man was the father of Choi Hyun-woo, who had been identified as the mastermind.
"The next day, the father of Choi Hyun-woo, who was identified as the mastermind, came to our newspaper office. He kept speaking in a highly frustrated tone, claiming his son was not the culprit, and said he had gone to other newspapers but they wouldn't listen to him..."
- Kim Hyung-jin, then-reporting reporter
Choi Hyun-woo's father presented envelopes claiming his son also had an alibi on the day of the crime. The first envelope contained statements from Choi Hyun-woo's colleagues, stating they saw him working on the day of the crime. The second envelope contained his home phone records, showing that Choi Hyun-woo had spoken with his girlfriend from home after work on the day of the crime.
Furthermore, his home and workplace were located in a different region, not Busan. In other words, Choi Hyun-woo was not even in Busan on the day of the crime. Looking at his colleagues' statements and the phone records with his girlfriend, was Choi Hyun-woo's claim true?
Out of the three accomplices named by Na Kyung-ae, two were claiming alibis. Did the final accomplice, Jung Il-soo, have an alibi as well? Reporter Kim rushed to the restaurant Jung Il-soo ran. There, he met Jung Il-soo's friends, who stated that Jung Il-soo was at his restaurant on the day of the crime, meaning he also had an alibi. Even more bafflingly, Jung Il-soo claimed he saw Na Kyung-ae and Shin Yu-ri for the very first time at the police station. They had never even known each other before.
Three accomplices claiming innocence, and Na Kyung-ae claiming they committed the crime together. Someone among them is lying.
▲ Shattered Alibis
The Busan Maeil Shinmun compiled the alibis of the three accomplices and immediately reported them.
This time, the police went into a frenzy. They had just announced the resolution of a kidnapping case that shook the nation, only for an article to suggest that three of the suspects might not be the culprits. The police immediately fired back, claiming that the alibis presented by the accomplices were completely fabricated. Here is the police's side of the story.
First, regarding Shin Yu-ri's alibi of taking a typing exam at her college. The police acknowledged that Shin Yu-ri did go to school on the day of the crime. However, they revealed that one of the students who took the exam that day made an unexpected confession. It was Shin Yu-ri's friend, Miss A.
"I'm sorry. Yu-ri asked me to, so I had no choice but to take the exam for her."
- Shin Yu-ri's friend, A
A stated that she took the typing test on behalf of Shin Yu-ri, and Shin Yu-ri arrived late only to sign the answer sheet. In other words, Shin Yu-ri had set up a "fake alibi" in advance. As for the statements from classmates who claimed to have seen Shin Yu-ri on the day of the exam, the police explained that they had merely seen her arriving late at the test site. Later, the police referred A to the prosecution on charges of taking the exam for Shin Yu-ri.
"To be honest, it was a lie that I saw my friend at the store that day. I lied because I wanted to help my friend."
- Jeong Il-soo's friend
The friend who had provided an alibi for Jeong Il-soo also later confessed to the police, admitting that they had lied to reporters in an attempt to help their friend.
The police also claimed that Choi Hyun-woo's alibi was unreliable. At the time, the president of the company where Choi Hyun-woo worked was none other than his own father. Therefore, the police argued that the employees might have given false statements under pressure from the father, Mr. Choi. But what about the call records with his girlfriend? After consulting with experts, the police claimed that, theoretically, call records could be manipulated. They suggested that the father, Mr. Choi, an influential local figure, bribed a telephone office employee to fabricate fake records.
Now, hearing the police's claims, what do you think? Can the alibis of the three accomplices be trusted? Regarding their alibis, Na Kyung-ae said:
"I have committed a grave, unforgivable sin. I will accept any punishment. However, I can never forgive those who show no remorse."
- Na Kyung-ae
Na Kyung-ae strongly insisted that the accomplices were lying. The prosecution, which took over the case, also recognized the charges against the three accomplices, just as the police did. Ultimately, the truth of this case was left to be decided in court.
▲ Discrepancies in Statements
However, the judge presiding over this trial was nicknamed the "Tiger Judge," famous for handing down heavy sentences in heinous, anti-humanitarian violent crimes.
"At the time, the entire nation was incredibly focused on whether these people were the actual culprits or not. I felt that this case required an exceptionally careful trial. When citizens face unfairness or difficulties, isn't the court their last resort? If so, isn't it most desirable for the judges in that court to work together to find the right answer..."
- Park Tae-beom, then-Presiding Judge of the Busan District Court
However, as Judge Park reviewed the case files, he noticed something puzzling. Let's look back at Na Kyung-ae's statement to see what it was.
On October 9, 1994, the four of them allegedly planned the crime following Choi Hyun-woo's suggestion. The next day, October 10, Na Kyung-ae lured Eun-ji on her way home from school and took her to her own house. Later, at the agreed-upon time, she took the child to a predetermined location. There, they put Eun-ji into a car driven by the accomplices. At this point, they reportedly had no intention of harming Eun-ji, believing they only needed to get money from her parents. So, they drove for about an hour to Nampo-dong, Busan. At the time, this area was a popular hotspot known as the "Myeong-dong of Busan." Driving a kidnapped child for an hour to a bustling downtown area? Doesn't that seem a bit strange?
Na Kyung-ae claimed that they later decided to kill the child as Shin Yu-ri suggested, and discussed the location of the murder with the accomplices. The spot Na Kyung-ae pointed out was an alley in Bupyeong-dong, just across the street from Nampo-dong. She claimed they parked the car there and killed Eun-ji inside it. Committing such a crime on a street rather than indoors? This, too, was hard to believe.
So, Judge Park decided to conduct an "on-site reconstruction" to personally visit the scene and verify Na Kyung-ae's statements.
However, upon personal inspection, the murder scene pointed out by Na Kyung-ae seemed strange. Realistically, it made no sense that a murder could have been committed there.
"You can't park a car in front of this store. If someone tries to park, we don't let them. We are running a business, and if a car blocks the front of the store, customers can't come in."
- Owner of the store in front of the crime scene
When the reporting team checked the site themselves, they found that this alley had so much traffic that a car could not be parked there for even a single minute. How did Na Kyung-ae react on-site when this was pointed out?
"When I got out of the car, I said I was keeping watch, but actually, I wasn't keeping watch after I got out..."
(When asked if she didn't know whether this was the actual murder scene or not)
"As of right now..."
- Na Kyung-ae
As a result of the on-site reconstruction, Na Kyung-ae's statements lost all credibility. Conversely, the probability that the three accomplices' alibis were true increased.
▲ New Evidence
At that time, Reporter Kim of the Busan Maeil Shinmun was deeply troubled. The evidence proving their alibis had been rendered useless during the police investigation. If the three accomplices were truly framed, other evidence was needed to prove their innocence. Just then, a young woman came to Reporter Kim asking for help. It was Choi Hyun-woo's girlfriend.
"He used to call me whenever he moved from one place to another. He was a very caring person. Since he arrived in Daegu at 2:00 PM on October 8 and was definitely with me through the 8th, 9th, and until 1:00 AM on the 10th, I was certain that Hyun-woo was not the culprit."
- Choi Hyun-woo's girlfriend
She insisted that they did indeed talk on the phone on October 10, the day of the crime, and that the call records were not fabricated. Choi Hyun-woo's girlfriend showed a timeline she had made of their movements at the time, which included the following:
"Sunday, October 9, 1994. My sister, Hyun-woo, myself, and my four nieces and nephews went to a sports day in Hyun-woo's car."
This meant that on October 10, the day of the crime, he went to work, and on October 9, when they allegedly plotted the crime, he attended his girlfriend's niece's/nephew's sports day. Reporter Kim called the kindergarten that held the sports day and asked if there was any video footage filmed on that day. The kindergarten said they had hired a videographer to shoot the event. If Choi Hyun-woo was captured on that videotape, his alibi would be proven. However, upon checking, Choi Hyun-woo could not be found in the footage. Just as Reporter Kim was feeling disappointed, the kindergarten shared a piece of information. In 1994, video cameras were rare. However, there was exactly one parent who had brought a camcorder.
"Back then, domestic home video cameras had just come out, so it was a novelty. When I carried it around and filmed, ordinary people would even ask me, 'Which broadcasting station are you from?' Since video cameras were so rare at the time, other mothers at the sports day kept asking me to film their kids, so I carried a tripod and kept shooting there."
- Lee Sang-choon, who filmed the kindergarten sports day at the time
That night, Reporter Kim and Choi Hyun-woo's lawyer visited Lee Sang-choon's house and watched the tape together.
"So we watched the video together at my house. We kept watching, and then, 'Stop!' They rewound and replayed it a few times, and then said, 'We will use this as evidence.'"
- Lee Sang-choon, who filmed the kindergarten sports day at the time
The man walking in front of the parents playing tug-of-war was indeed Choi Hyun-woo. Would Choi Hyun-woo's alibi be proven in court?
"Since the prosecution claimed that the sports day video was manipulated or edited, we consulted an expert at the time to see if it was synthesized, and they said, 'It is not edited.' It was clearly proven that on October 9, the day of the alleged conspiracy, Choi Hyun-woo was in Daegu, not Busan."
- Park Tae-beom, the judge in charge of the case at the time
The situation of Choi Hyun-woo, who was accused of being the mastermind, was completely reversed. Was everything fabricated by Na Kyung-ae?
▲ Uncover the Truth
Following this, lawyers in Busan began to take action. The Busan Bar Association conducted a truth-finding investigation into the case. Interestingly, the head of this investigation team was former President Moon Jae-in, who was a practicing lawyer at the time.
"At the time, Attorney Moon Jae-in was incredibly passionate. Even during our reporting, if we shared new facts discovered late at night, around 11:00 PM or midnight, he would immediately rush to the scene and verify them himself."
- Kim Hyung-jin, the reporter covering the case at the time
Attorney Moon and the investigation team met not only with the four defendants but also with all the witnesses. When the results were announced, the case took an unexpected turn. They found the real accomplice who had manipulated the case behind Na Kyung-ae.
▲ The Third Accomplice
This is a written statement recorded and notarized by the investigation team itself. The statement was made by a witness, Mr. Oh. He was being investigated for a different case at the same police station handling Eun-ji's case. He happened to see Choi Hyun-woo and Jeong Il-soo being investigated next to him.
"A person who appeared to be the head of the investigation ordered that their statements must be aligned, saying there were too many discrepancies. As soon as Choi Hyun-woo and Jeong Il-soo entered the office, they started beating them indiscriminately, saying, 'You bastards, you don't deserve to live. You must die.'"
- From the statement of witness Mr. Oh
At the time, the police reportedly sat Na Kyung-ae next to them and beat the two men until they gave the same answers as her. If the accomplices' statements differed, the police should have questioned Na Kyung-ae's initial claims. Instead, they assaulted Choi Hyun-woo and Jeong Il-soo, claiming that 16 of their statements did not align. Mr. Oh recalled that every time Choi Hyun-woo returned to the holding cell after questioning, he was covered in bruises.
And remember how it was mentioned earlier that Jeong Il-soo did not know Na Kyung-ae? In fact, the accomplice Na Kyung-ae initially pointed out was not Jeong Il-soo, but a man named Park Dong-soo (pseudonym).
"The accomplice initially pointed out at the police station by the cousin, Na Kyung-ae, was a man named 'Park Dong-soo.' They identified him as the culprit, brought him in, and actually investigated him at the police station."
- Kim Hyung-jin, the reporter covering the case at the time
However, when they checked Park Dong-soo's whereabouts, he was serving as a conscripted police officer on the day of the crime. With such an airtight alibi, Park Dong-soo was clearly not the culprit. The police then demanded to know the "real accomplice." Instead of asking Na Kyung-ae, they asked Choi Hyun-woo—even resorting to torture. Unable to endure the torture, Choi Hyun-woo eventually pointed to his friend, Jeong Il-soo. Jeong Il-soo, after suffering harsh treatment by the police, also made a false statement claiming he had used the pseudonym "Park Dong-soo."
That wasn't all. Miss A, who had stated she took the exam on behalf of Shin Yu-ri, revealed to the investigation team, "Yu-ri did take the exam herself that day," admitting she had been forced to lie.
"During the police investigation, what they were saying started to sound like the truth. It wasn't true at all, but since Yu-ri kept insisting it was, and the police warned me that if things went wrong, I might have to spend a few days in the holding cell, I was terrified."
- Shin Yu-ri's friend, A
The investigation revealed that Shin Yu-ri had also been severely beaten by the police. That was why she made a false confession about asking her friend to take the exam for her. Furthermore, Jeong Il-soo's friend, who had retracted his statement, also revealed that he had given false testimony due to police assault.
In total, there were six witnesses who gave false statements due to the police's coercive investigation. The police assaulted not only the suspects but also the witnesses. In other words, the alibis of the three accomplices were not fabricated; they were the truth. Yet, the police refused to believe the three men from the very beginning. Why on earth did the police go to such lengths?
"Police Day is October 21. Since the incident occurred less than ten days before October 21, the police station involved was in line to receive an award for solving the case. That is why they conducted such a high-pressure investigation."
- Kim Hyung-jin, the reporter covering the case at the time
At the time, the police announced the three individuals as accomplices based solely on Na Kyung-ae's confession. Having quickly solved a kidnapping and murder case that shocked the entire nation, they were even slated to receive a presidential citation. Consequently, suspicions arose that they had conducted a coercive investigation to wrap up the case hastily ahead of the award ceremony.
But was it really just a suspicion? There is clear "physical evidence" in this case.
The blanket wrapping that covered Eun-ji's body. This was the only physical evidence in this case. Naturally, it should have been preserved. When asked about the status of this blanket, the police said:
"This has been incinerated and no longer exists. (When asked who incinerated it) The autopsy room staff. The autopsy room workers."
– Police officer in charge of the case
The police claimed that the autopsy room staff incinerated it without a word. Is this claim true?
"When the police request us to 'secure it as evidence,' we preserve it. Our job itself is to assist with the autopsies conducted by the police, not to lead them. We cannot arbitrarily keep something if we are told 'do not leave it,' nor would we destroy something the police told us to 'keep.'"
– Autopsy room staff member
The police did not even properly manage the sole physical and decisive piece of evidence. Naturally, they did not investigate any fingerprints or DNA that might have remained on the wrapping cloth. If true, this is a massive dereliction of duty, and if it was covered up, it is a criminal act.
Later, Lawyer Moon Jae-in and the Busan Bar Association sued all 14 police officers involved in the torture. As a result of the investigation, charges were acknowledged for seven of them, and three were ultimately convicted.
"Without the efforts of the Busan Bar Association's truth investigation team and Lawyer Moon Jae-in, I think it would not have been easy to reach this stage."
– Kim Hyung-jin, the reporter who covered the case at the time
▲ The Unending Revelations
Did the trial of Eun-ji's case proceed smoothly then? Shin Yu-ri's friend, Miss A, exposed another shocking fact. This is from her written statement:
"I went to the prosecutor's office with the thought of telling only the absolute truth this time. But instead of believing me, they beat me and swore at me, accusing me of lying."
– From Miss A's written statement
Just like the police, the prosecution had also resorted to assault and intimidation. Reporter Kim Hyung-jin of the Busan Maeil Shinmun immediately reported this. Consequently, the newspaper office was thrown into turmoil.
"I really thought the prosecution organization was formidable. The president of our newspaper graduated from Seoul National University, and they even found a high-ranking prosecution official who had a connection with him from his boarding house days to contact the president and suggest, 'It would be good if you stopped reporting.' They used various methods to apply pressure."
– Kim Hyung-jin, the reporter who covered the case at the time
Another reporter from the Busan Maeil Shinmun was summoned for questioning by the prosecution, and Reporter Kim was even sued by the police for defamation by publication. However, the reporters did not back down. They continued to report evidence proving the alibis of the co-defendants.
"There were even rumors saying, 'The reporters will be arrested' or 'The company will go bankrupt,' but we weren't afraid. It actually made us believe even more that we could win and that this case must be uncovered, driving us to show even greater journalistic spirit."
– Kim Hyung-jin, the reporter who covered the case at the time
However, the prosecution fought back fiercely, claiming that even if the evidence fabricated through torture was excluded, there was still sufficient evidence to prove the defendants' guilt. The courtroom battle grew more intense by the day. The number of witnesses requested by both sides reached a staggering 98, which was reportedly a record high in criminal trial history at the time.
After a turbulent 1994, February 1995 arrived, and only the sentencing remained. But just then, someone visited Judge Park's office.
"Since this case was drawing so much national attention, mid-level prosecutors came to me and said, 'Don't make a ruling, Presiding Judge Park, just leave for your next post.' The atmosphere at the time strongly suggested an acquittal was coming, so they wanted the verdict to be delivered by a different panel of judges. They made many such requests, if you could call them that."
– Park Tae-beom, the judge in charge of the case at the time
At the time, Judge Park had already been appointed to another court as of March 1, 1995. Yet, the prosecution requested additional hearings twice, claiming they had new evidence. Judge Park accepted all those requests, delaying the sentencing date as much as possible to February 24, just one week before his transfer. Even so, a high-ranking prosecution official asked him to delay the sentencing once more. Judge Park firmly rejected this demand.
"'The defendants on trial are waiting and putting their trust in this panel of judges, so how could I irresponsibly abandon them and just leave?'"
– Park Tae-beom, the judge in charge of the case at the time
On the night of February 23, the day before the sentencing, Judge Park, who was preparing to leave work, called home on a strange hunch. When he asked if any suspicious people had come by or if anyone had left a note, Judge Park's wife replied:
"Some men are standing outside. Why do you ask?"
Judge Park felt that he should not go home under those circumstances. So, he intentionally waited until after midnight to return home in the early morning.
Thus, the day of the sentencing dawned. However, unfamiliar men visited his house early in the morning. They were people from the prosecution. In the end, Judge Park fled his home and headed to a certain location.
"If I went straight to my office on the day of the trial, I would have faced continuous pressure from all sides to postpone the sentencing. So, I decided to stay on a small island near the court and enter the courtroom just in time for the sentencing."
– Park Tae-beom, the judge in charge of the case at the time
Finally, at 1:30 PM, the scheduled time for the sentencing, Judge Park headed straight to the courtroom as soon as he arrived at the court. A crowd of over 300 people gathered in the courtroom to hear his verdict that day. In a rare move for a criminal trial, television cameras even appeared in the courtroom. So, what was Judge Park's final ruling?
"This case involves kidnapping and causing the death of a young cousin who usually followed and liked the defendant, Na, calling her 'Unni, Unni.' This is an act so contrary to humanity that it cannot be tolerated for any reason. For these reasons, the defendant, Na Kyung-ae, is sentenced to death. For the other defendants, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the charges, meaning the crimes have not been proven. Therefore, all three co-defendants are acquitted..."
– From the first-instance ruling
However, the prosecution did not accept this verdict and immediately appealed. On December 8, 1995, the Supreme Court delivered its final ruling on the case. Na Kyung-ae, who had been sentenced to death in the first trial, had her sentence commuted to life imprisonment because she showed remorse. The other three individuals were all acquitted. Thanks to the efforts of many, these three young people were cleared of the false accusations.
▲ The Unsolved Mystery
Yet, Judge Park says there are still unresolved questions about this case, even now, 30 years later.
"The female defendant, Na Kyung-ae, admitted to the crime from the very beginning and consistently maintained in her statements that she did it with these three people. Why she dragged three innocent people into this remains a mystery, I think."
– Park Tae-beom, the judge in charge of the case at the time
From here, we will tell you another truth of that day 30 years ago, which was not recorded in the ruling. It began in May 1994, when this entire tragedy started.
Five months before the incident, Na Kyung-ae and Shin Yu-ri were walking along the Haeundae beach at night. A young man approached them, asking, "Would you like me to take a picture of you?" He then mentioned he had a companion and suggested they grab a cup of coffee together. That companion was Choi Hyun-woo. The three of them, who met for the first time that way, went on a trip to Masan shortly after. But on that day, Na Kyung-ae witnessed an unexpected scene.
"I had feelings for Choi Hyun-woo ever since I first saw him, but when I woke up, I saw him kissing Shin Yu-ri on the cheek, which made me feel strange. I felt regretful, upset, and even humiliated in many ways."
– From Na Kyung-ae's statement
It is natural to feel bad seeing the man you like with another woman. But humiliated? In fact, Na Kyung-ae had experienced something similar before. There was a man she had a crush on, but he also liked Shin Yu-ri. Shin Yu-ri reportedly had no interest in him whatsoever. She had only met him once because he contacted her so persistently. Perhaps Na Kyung-ae thought, 'Why does everyone like Shin Yu-ri even when she does nothing, while the man I like doesn't like me?'
The name of the man Na Kyung-ae had a crush on was Park Dong-su, the very person she first pointed out as a co-conspirator. In other words, Na Kyung-ae framed Park Dong-su and Choi Hyun-woo—the men she had crushed on—and Shin Yu-ri, the girl they both liked, with this horrific crime.
However, Na Kyung-ae's feelings at the time might not have been simple jealousy. Na Kyung-ae's friends described her like this:
"Should I say Kyung-ae was a bit eccentric? Once, she actually chewed and broke a glass cup with her mouth."
"Kyung-ae had a sort of complex. It got worse after she failed to get into college."
The university Shin Yu-ri was attending at the time was the very university Na Kyung-ae had failed to enter.
From the beginning of the investigation, the police believed Na Kyung-ae had an accomplice because Eun-ji's mother, who received the threatening call, stated that the kidnapper's voice was male. Could there have been a real, third accomplice? It is possible that Na Kyung-ae pointed out the three individuals to hide him. There is a saying that 'a perfect lie is made from the ingredients of truth.' Perhaps within Na Kyung-ae's statements, there lies a piece of truth she hid without realizing it.
To find that piece, let's go back to the interrogation room 30 years ago.
▲ The Truth Hidden in the Statements
First, this is the situation where Na Kyung-ae testified about the threatening phone call:
"She said, 'Hyun-woo oppa called that house and told them to bring the money. Then my aunt begged him, saying, "Just don't hurt the child."'"
– From Na Kyung-ae's statement
This statement claiming Choi Hyun-woo made the threatening call is, of course, a lie. However, experts say there is a word to pay close attention to here.
"What Na Kyung-ae is claiming here is describing what she heard about Choi Hyun-woo's previous call to Eun-ji's mother. The word that stands out in this statement is 'Aunt.' From Choi Hyun-woo's perspective, it would have been more natural to refer to the other party as 'the person on the phone,' 'the child's mother,' or 'the lady' as a third party. However, when Na Kyung-ae described it, she used the term 'Aunt,' which refers to her own relationship with the person on the phone. In other words, the person who actually spoke with the aunt is highly likely to be Na Kyung-ae..."
– Park Ji-sun, Criminal Psychologist
The word 'Aunt' was highly likely uttered unconsciously as Na Kyung-ae spoke from her own experience. In other words, Na Kyung-ae herself might have made the threatening call by mimicking a male voice.
Then, who killed Eun-ji, and why? This time, it is the situation where Na Kyung-ae talks about Eun-ji's condition inside the car:
"When I asked if Eun-ji was crying, she said Hyun-woo oppa told me she was fine because he tied her mouth with a towel and buckled her seatbelt."
– From Na Kyung-ae's statement
This statement is also Na Kyung-ae's lie. There is something unnatural about it.
"When looking at the description of the situation inside the car, a very prominent element appears: a 'towel.' We need to suspect this towel as the actual tool used in the crime. When someone is murdered by a person they have a close or familiar relationship with, they often use tools like clothes or towels to gag or strangle them. I believe there is a high possibility that a tool like the towel mentioned in this statement was used to suffocate the child."
– Park Ji-sun, Criminal Psychologist
Indeed, Eun-ji's cause of death was revealed to be suffocation. If Na Kyung-ae really committed the crime using a towel, the place where Eun-ji was killed would likely be somewhere a towel is always readily available.
"A towel is an item far more likely to be found inside a house than inside a car. Looking at the 'child crying situation' described here, I believe the process leading to the child's death was highly likely unintentional and highly impulsive."
– Park Ji-sun, Criminal Psychologist
Professor Park Ji-sun states that there is a high probability Eun-ji was killed at Na Kyung-ae's house. Just as Na claimed, it seems she initially took Eun-ji just to make some money. Afterward, she fed her snacks and let her watch TV at her house. However, something unplanned happened: Eun-ji started crying. A child crying hysterically is difficult to control, even for parents. In fact, many kidnappers end up killing the child shortly after the abduction because they cannot handle the crying. The expert estimates that Na Kyung-ae also killed Eun-ji impulsively during that process.
Furthermore, the body was found in Na Kyung-ae's room. If there had been an accomplice, wouldn't they have hidden the body somewhere other than her own house? In other words, this case is estimated to be a solo crime committed by Na Kyung-ae in her own home.
The most horrific truth remains. This is Na Kyung-ae's statement about discussing the disposal of the body:
"I asked Yuri the next day, 'What did you do with it?' She said it seemed Hyun-woo oppa drove around with it all night, not knowing what to do with that corpse, 'it.'"
– From Na Kyung-ae's statement
What was Na Kyung-ae's true feelings hidden behind the lie? What can we find here?
"The most surprising and shocking part of Na Kyung-ae's statement is that throughout her entire description of the kidnapping and murder process, there is absolutely no sense of sadness, regret, or any such emotion. Furthermore, the word Na Kyung-ae uses to describe the victim is 'it.' Her attitude of referring to the victim, who is her own relative, as an object like 'it' is incredibly shocking."
– Park Ji-sun, Criminal Psychologist
▲ Fish in a Trap
In the expert's view, Na Kyung-ae did not seem to feel any guilt or emotion toward the victim. However, all of this remains mere speculation. Because the investigation relied heavily on Na Kyung-ae's statements and torture, they missed the golden window to gather key evidence. Consequently, even now, 30 years later, the bereaved family still does not know why or how Eun-ji died. It remains forever a half-unsolved mystery.
Thanks to those who fought for the truth, the three co-defendants were cleared of their false accusations, but this case was never fully resolved. If the prosecution had chosen to reinvestigate instead of appealing after the first-instance ruling, or if the police had properly verified the suspects' alibis, or if Na Kyung-ae had simply told the truth, would the truth behind Eun-ji's death have been brought to light?
Reporter Kim says that when he thinks of this case, a "fish trap" used to catch fish comes to mind.
"You know what a fish trap is, right? If a fish enters the trap and swims back out, it survives. I believe the prosecution at the time was like a fish in that trap. They must have realized why the police's initial investigation was flawed and where things went wrong. They could have just walked away then. They could have held the person in charge of the investigation accountable and saved these innocent young people. The prosecution would have even received applause for that. Instead, they used their power to push forward, insisting on sticking to their original indictment."
- Kim Hyung-jin, Reporter who covered the case at the time
A fish in a trap. Perhaps this also applies to Na Gyeong-ae. If only she had sent the child back when she felt she could no longer handle Eun-ji, who was crying helplessly.
And this may apply to all of us as well. Everyone has, at least once, regretted a first button fastened incorrectly. Ultimately, what matters is the courage to correct our mistakes. Even if it means taking a detour or suffering a loss, having the courage to willingly admit a mistake and start over—perhaps that courage could become the new first button for a fresh start.
What are your thoughts today after hearing the story of 'that day'?
Reporter Kang Sun-ae sakang@sbs.co.kr
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.