The Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency's southern branch said on April 5 that it will thoroughly investigate all missing persons cases over the past three years. This follows the recent revelation that police had wrongly closed a probe into the disappearance of a Jeju Island man whose remains were later found. A team of investigators from the police headquarters will conduct an on-site reinvestigation into 2,900 cases in which people went missing between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2022, but whose whereabouts were not confirmed. The reinvestigation will focus on cases involving people who disappeared while staying in or passing through Gyeonggi Province. Police said they will pay special attention to cases that were closed without identifying the missing person's location or cause of disappearance, or those in which there were signs of a crime. The police agency's southern branch said it will work with police in other regions to review cases involving missing persons who may have been traveling between regions. The Jeju Island case that led to the reinvestigation involved a 36-year-old man who went missing on July 1, 2019. Police initially closed the case in September 2019 after conducting a two-month investigation that included a search of the sea and coastal areas. But in February, police received an anonymous tip that the man had been murdered, and his body was subsequently found buried in a field. Police have arrested a suspect in connection with the case and are investigating. The case drew widespread attention and sparked public outrage over the handling of missing persons cases. In response to public concerns, police said they will work to prevent such oversights in the future.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recently determined that a prison had unlawfully restrained a prisoner for over nine hours using three types of protective equipment, ruling that the confinement amounted to a human rights violation. Even in cases of unavoidable necessity, protective equipment should be used in a reasonable manner and limited to a necessary extent, according to the NHRC.

On November 11th, the NHRC advised the prison director to thoroughly assess the necessity and appropriateness of protective equipment use in the case of △detainee and to conduct a training program for staff members, urging them to conduct video recordings and management of the protective equipment usage process. Protective equipment includes handcuffs, leg shackles, and other equipment used to restrain detainees when there is a concern they may attempt to escape, commit self-harm, or harm others.

Due to the detainee's refusal to comply with the prison staff's orders, multiple protective equipment were simultaneously worn by the detainee throughout a long period of time, which was deemed unjust by the NHRC in August last year. In response, the prison defended its actions by stating that the detainee had committed a clear breach of discipline, failed to respond to legitimate duties, and had a high likelihood of verbally or physically harming others.

According to the prison, it used protective equipment in accordance with the relevant laws. The NHRC's investigation revealed that the prison staff used three types of protective equipment simultaneously on the detainee, with actual usage time amounting to 9 hours and 25 minutes, excluding temporary release for meals and hygiene.

The NHRC's Second Review Committee (Chairwoman Kim Hae-jar) stated that protective equipment should only be used in the minimum necessary scope and that the prison's "Protective Equipment Usage Improvement Issues" policy prohibits the simultaneous use of multiple protective equipment. The committee acknowledged that using protective equipment in a specific range during that time was recognized, but that the necessity of using three types of protective equipment simultaneously was not sufficiently proven.

The NHRC also noted that the lack of bodycam footage made it difficult to verify the appropriateness of protective equipment use and physical force application during that time. The NHRC emphasized that while protecting the detainee's rights, it is also necessary to record the protective equipment usage process with video footage to protect law-abiding prison staff.