[Full Text] Special Prosecutor Lee Hyun-joo's Announcement on the Investigation Results of Sewol Ferry Evidence Tampering Allegations

[Image source=Yonhap News]

We will now announce the investigation results of the Special Prosecutor regarding the allegations of manipulation and editing of evidence related to the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster.

More than seven years have passed since April 16, 2014, a day that remains an unforgettable sorrow for all of us. Precious lives were lost to the sea. This emptiness is why the Sewol Ferry Disaster remains an ongoing issue. It is also the reason why the Sewol Special Prosecutor was launched despite the passage of time. Facing the pain accumulated over seven years, our Special Prosecutor set one principle.

"If we follow where the evidence points, we will reach the truth."

Based on this belief, the Sewol Special Prosecutor, appointed on April 23 and after a preparation period, began the investigation on May 13. During the 90-day investigation period, we conducted searches and seizures at a total of 10 locations, including the Presidential Archives, the Navy, and the Coast Guard, and investigated a total of 78 related individuals. We also secured approximately 169 terabytes of digital evidence and meticulously reviewed about 4,000 hours of Navy and Coast Guard voice communications recordings.

The scope of our investigation included allegations regarding the Navy and Coast Guard’s collection and handover process of the ‘Sewol DVR,’ allegations of manipulation of the ‘Sewol CCTV’ data, suspicions about the appropriateness of government responses including the Blue House related to the DVR, and related cases identified during the investigation process.

While analyzing the vast amount of data weighing as heavily as seven years, all members of the Special Prosecutor’s team were determined to leave no suspicion unexamined. Today, we would like to share the results of that journey.

In today’s announcement, we will summarize the investigation results of the Special Prosecutor.

1. First, we will present the investigation results regarding the allegations about the Navy and Coast Guard’s collection and handover process of the ‘Sewol DVR.’

The ‘Sewol DVR’ is a device called a ‘Digital Video Recorder,’ which stores footage recorded by a total of 64 CCTVs installed inside the Sewol Ferry. The Navy and Coast Guard collected the ‘DVR’ from the third-floor information desk of the Sewol Ferry on June 22, 2014. The core of this allegation is that the ‘Sewol DVR’ was secretly collected before June 22, 2014, that the DVR collected on June 22, 2014, was a ‘fake DVR,’ and that two DVRs were swapped afterward.

First, to clarify whether the ‘Sewol DVR’ was secretly collected before June 22, 2014, the Special Prosecutor collected and analyzed a vast amount of evidence. We secured approximately 4,000 hours of voice files of communications between the Navy and Coast Guard from April 16, 2014, to June 23, 2014, and formed a transcription task force including 21 stenographers to review the contents. Additionally, we seized and secured various documents related to the case, including the Navy’s text information network, Coast Guard messenger records, and materials related to the Sewol Ferry Disaster from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, as well as Presidential records related to the disaster. We thoroughly examined all evidence under the assumption that if the ‘Sewol DVR’ had been secretly collected before June 22, 2014, there would be at least a shred of evidence remaining.

The investigation found no evidence to suggest that the ‘Sewol DVR’ was collected before June 22, 2014. On the contrary, considering the search situation at the time, the status of the barge, and testimonies of related persons, it was judged to be extremely difficult for anyone to secretly dive inside the Sewol hull, find the third-floor information desk in the very low-visibility underwater environment, collect the ‘Sewol DVR,’ and leave the Sewol disaster area unnoticed.

Next, the Special Prosecutor conducted various investigations to verify the allegation that the DVR collected on June 22, 2014, was a ‘fake DVR.’ We visited the Sewol hull for verification, requested forensic analysis from the National Forensic Service on underwater footage filmed during the DVR collection and footage recorded by the 4.16 Recording Team, and conducted comprehensive investigations of dozens of people including Coast Guard and Navy personnel involved in the search, civilian divers, families of victims and missing persons, and video analysis experts.

The investigation found no grounds to believe that a ‘fake DVR’ existed separately from the ‘Sewol DVR,’ nor any evidence that the DVR was swapped. Rather, after thorough review of our own verification, the National Forensic Service’s appraisal results, and testimonies of related persons, we concluded that the DVR collected on June 22, 2014, was the original ‘Sewol DVR,’ not a ‘fake DVR.’

Therefore, regarding the allegations about the collection and handover process of the ‘Sewol DVR,’ the Special Prosecutor decided not to file charges due to lack of supporting evidence.

2. Next, we will present the investigation results regarding the allegations of manipulation of the ‘Sewol CCTV’ data.

The core of this allegation is that someone manipulated the ‘Sewol CCTV’ data stored in the ‘Sewol DVR.’ To help understand this allegation, we will first explain the basic facts. Inside the ‘Sewol DVR’ were two hard disks, one of which contained CCTV footage related to the Sewol disaster. The CCTV data submitted to the court in 2014 all came from this hard disk. This hard disk stored about two months’ worth of Sewol CCTV footage. However, at that time, the evidence preservation procedure involved extracting and submitting only the data related to the playback of one week’s worth of CCTV footage from April 10 to April 16, 2014, rather than the entire ‘restored data’ of the hard disk. Thus, only a portion of the ‘restored data’ was submitted to the court, not the entire ‘restored data.’

The issue then is whether the entire ‘restored data’ of this hard disk was preserved. The ‘restored data’ was not submitted to the court in 2014, nor was a hash value ensuring the digital data’s integrity generated. However, the restoration contractor who performed the restoration at the time personally kept the ‘restored data’ and submitted it to the Sewol Special Investigation Commission in 2016.

The Sewol Special Investigation Commission analyzed the ‘restored data’ submitted by the restoration contractor and raised suspicions that the data submitted to the court in 2014 had been manipulated. According to the Special Prosecutor’s investigation, the ‘restored data’ analyzed by the Commission was kept personally by the restoration contractor on his ‘working hard disk’ after the court’s CCTV verification procedure ended in 2014, and it was confirmed that this ‘working hard disk’ had been formatted in 2016. The ‘working hard disk’ stored not only the ‘restored data’ but also other materials, and the restoration contractor had copied and deleted various files on this disk.

In other words, since the ‘restored data’ of the Sewol DVR hard disk was personally kept by the restoration contractor for nearly two years, there is a possibility that the storage medium, the ‘working hard disk,’ was contaminated. Especially, the ‘working hard disk’ contained not only the ‘restored data’ of the Sewol DVR but also restoration data from the Sewol work laptop computer and restoration data of victims’ mobile phones. Therefore, it is presumed that MP3 music files and entertainment program editing videos stored on the laptop computer were mixed into the Sewol DVR’s ‘restored data’ during the personal storage process by the restoration contractor. Since the ‘restored data’ is susceptible to contamination, it is difficult to judge that the CCTV data submitted to the court was manipulated based on the ‘restored data,’ which does not guarantee identity with the original.

Nevertheless, the Special Prosecutor kept all possibilities open and conducted a thorough investigation into whether the ‘Sewol CCTV data’ was manipulated. The Commission pointed out ‘bad sector anomalies’ and ‘page file anomalies’ in the data submitted to the court in 2014 as signs of manipulation and raised suspicions that the CCTV data might have been manipulated during the restoration process.

In response, the Special Prosecutor reenacted the data restoration process using the data restoration device PC-3000 and requested forensic analysis from the National Forensic Service three times regarding the ‘bad sector anomalies’ and ‘page file anomalies.’ We also reviewed approximately 1,310 hours of footage from four CCTV cameras that recorded the restoration room during the 55-day restoration period from June 25 to August 18, 2014.

The investigation confirmed that the anomalies pointed out by the Commission as signs of manipulation are phenomena that can generally occur during the data restoration process. The National Forensic Service provided an appraisal stating that these phenomena are “difficult to consider as evidence of manipulation of the Sewol CCTV.” The review of the restoration room CCTV footage also found no suspicious signs of data manipulation.

Furthermore, the Special Prosecutor verified the impact of the anomalies pointed out by the Commission on the actual ‘Sewol CCTV video playback screen.’ The verification showed that these anomalies alone do not have an impact sufficient to hide or manipulate key scenes appearing in the actual CCTV footage.

Therefore, regarding the allegations of manipulation of the ‘Sewol CCTV’ data, the Special Prosecutor decided not to file charges due to lack of supporting evidence.

3. Next, we will present the investigation results regarding the allegations about the appropriateness of government responses, including the Blue House, related to the DVR.

The Special Prosecutor investigated all possibilities regarding the appropriateness of government responses related to the Sewol DVR. After reviewing all evidence, including Presidential records and communication data from the Navy and Coast Guard, no criminal suspicion was found regarding the government’s response to the DVR, and thus no charges will be filed.

As mentioned earlier, the scope of the Special Prosecutor’s investigation was limited to allegations of manipulation in the collection of the Sewol DVR, manipulation of CCTV data, and the appropriateness of related government responses. Although there were requests to investigate the Sewol ferry’s trajectory, after review, it was determined that this was outside the scope of the Special Prosecutor’s investigation.

The Special Prosecutor for the investigation of allegations of manipulation and editing of evidence related to the April 16 Sewol Ferry Disaster concludes the 90-day investigation today. We have made our best efforts to uncover the truth. We hope that this investigation has resolved the related suspicions. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all members of the Special Prosecutor’s team who maintained a strong sense of duty throughout the investigation period. I also thank the members of the Sewol Special Investigation Commission who actively cooperated by providing vast amounts of investigation materials and many others who sincerely participated in the investigation. Above all, I extend my deepest condolences and gratitude once again to the families of the Sewol Ferry Disaster victims who trusted and encouraged us and stood silently as a pillar of support.

This concludes the announcement of the investigation results.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.