CONTENTS
- 1. The Circumstances of the Gangbuk Motel Murder Case That Dominated the Social Affairs Pages
- - From the Hospital Prescription to the Offense...Preparation Had Already Begun
- - The Same Method, but if the Victim Had Survived, Special Bodily Injury? The Criteria for Determining the Charges
- 2. Why AI Chat Records Become Decisive Grounds for Determining Intent
- - The Evidentiary Significance of AI Records
- 3. The Use of AI Chat Histories as Criminal Evidence and Changes in Investigative Practice
- - Changes in the Investigative Structure
- 4. Criteria for the Legal Admissibility of AI Chat Records as Evidence
- - Main Criteria for Assessment
- - Points for Victim Response in Light of the Expanding Use of AI Evidence
- 5. Daeryun Law Firm LLP, a One-Stop Response System
1. The Circumstances of the Gangbuk Motel Murder Case That Dominated the Social Affairs Pages
Ms. Kim was found through investigation to have repeatedly asked a generative AI questions such as "What happens if you take a lot of sleeping pills?" and "Can you die from it?" before the offense.
The AI provided answers indicating the possibility of respiratory depression and death, and even though the suspect confirmed those answers, she is understood to have increased the dosage and had the victim drink a beverage containing psychotropic drugs in excess of the lethal dose.
According to the investigation, Ms. Kim committed the offense by obtaining prescriptions for psychotropic drugs such as flunitrazepam and diazepam at a hospital, crushing them, and adding them to a beverage.
In particular, the fact that she continued with additional offenses even though she had previously administered drugs to an earlier victim in the same manner and rendered that victim unconscious has become known, drawing public outrage.
The prosecution takes the view that, after forming a relationship with the victim, the suspect sought to obtain economic benefit and, in the course of severing the relationship, attempted to subdue the other party using drugs in order to avoid conflict.
However, Ms. Kim has stated that she feels wronged, saying that she "only tried to make the victim sleep out of fear" and that "the amount increased because it was a powdered drug and she did not know the dosage."
However, it is reported that the court-appointed defense counsel who had been assigned as Ms. Kim's attorney has notified the court of an intention to resign.
From the Hospital Prescription to the Offense...Preparation Had Already Begun
The noteworthy aspect of this case is that the offense was not carried out within a short period but was prepared over a certain period of time.
The suspect was found through investigation to have received psychiatric treatment by pretending to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), through which she continuously obtained prescriptions for psychotropic drugs.
As such, this offense appears to have been carried out not impulsively but in a state in which the offender sufficiently recognized the possibility that the victim would die.
The Same Method, but if the Victim Had Survived, Special Bodily Injury? The Criteria for Determining the Charges
In this case, even though the same method was used, the charge applied to the victims who did not die was not attempted murder but special (aggravated) bodily injury.
This is because the "intent to kill," which is the core of recognizing attempted murder, was not proven.
According to the investigation, the murder charge was applied to the offenses committed after the point at which Ms. Kim recognized the lethality of the drugs through AI, whereas for the earlier incidents it appears to have been determined that there was insufficient objective material to prove intent.
Meanwhile, it is reported that the bereaved family is preparing a civil claim for damages against Ms. Kim.
Accordingly, not only the scope of liability for damages but also Ms. Kim's ability to pay and the actual prospect of compensation are emerging as major issues.
2. Why AI Chat Records Become Decisive Grounds for Determining Intent
Murder is a crime that violates a person's life, and it is established only where there is an act that deprives another person of life.
In this case, regardless of whether the means or method of killing is tangible or intangible, direct or indirect, by act or by omission, any act that terminates a person's life is recognized as an act of killing.
In addition, murder is not recognized only where there is a clear purpose to kill or a premeditated intention.
The intent in the crime of murder does not necessarily require a purpose to kill or a premeditated intention to kill; it is sufficient to recognize or foresee that one's own act may bring about, or risks bringing about, the death of another person, and such recognition or foresight constitutes the criminal intent of murder as so-called conditional intent, whether it is definite or indefinite.
In light of the foregoing precedent, the key issue in the Gangbuk motel serial murder case is how to determine the suspect's "level of awareness of the risk."
Generally, in criminal cases, because it is not easy to directly prove the actor's state of awareness, intent is often determined by considering the totality of the circumstantial evidence.
In this case, however, a different pattern emerges in that AI chat records exist.
The Evidentiary Significance of AI Records
Before the offense, the suspect repeatedly asked a generative AI about the possibility of death from a drug overdose and confirmed answers indicating that a risk of death existed.
Such AI records carry important significance in the following respects.
• It is possible to confirm circumstances showing that awareness of the risk was reinforced through repeated questioning
• It is possible to prove a prior confirmation act carried out immediately before the offense in terms of the chronological sequence
As a result, a notable feature of this case is that the AI chat records can serve as key material showing that the suspect was aware of the lethality of the drugs and the possibility of death.
In particular, considering that she increased the drug dosage even after her prior experience and repeated confirmation through AI, there is significant room to evaluate these records as showing that she accepted the occurrence of the result, and they may serve as decisive grounds for proving intent.
3. The Use of AI Chat Histories as Criminal Evidence and Changes in Investigative Practice
Recent criminal investigations are rapidly changing around the analysis of digital data, and AI technology is also advancing to a stage of being directly utilized in the investigation and crime analysis process.
In Korea as well, the use of AI in the investigation process is being discussed in earnest, and the relevant institutional framework is being developed.
Recently, as the National Police Agency expands the introduction of artificial intelligence across investigation and public security, it is promoting the enactment of the "National Police Agency AI Directive" to clarify the standards for using AI and the structure of responsibility.
The directive is expected to include the principle that AI is to be used as an auxiliary means for investigative determinations, while the final determination and responsibility rest with the investigator.
This trend shows an important change compared with the structure of existing criminal investigations.
In the past, it was common to separately secure individual digital materials, such as call records, email contents, and search histories, in order to reconstruct the circumstances of a case.
Recently, however, the investigative method has been shifting toward an integrated analysis of various digital data, and in this process the structure in which AI is utilized as an auxiliary analytical tool is gradually expanding.
Changes in the Investigative Structure
Category | Existing Investigation | Current Investigation |
Analysis Method | Centered on individual evidence | Integrated data analysis |
Main Materials | Call, text, and search records | Integrated data (calls, emails, logs, etc.) |
Use of Technology | Limited | Introduction of AI-based analysis |
Just as the contents of an individual's communications, such as call records or emails, become subject to investigation, generative AI chat histories may likewise be evaluated as digital evidence of the same category, namely data in which the actor's decision-making process is recorded, and in this respect their potential utility and importance in future criminal investigations and trials are expected to expand further.
4. Criteria for the Legal Admissibility of AI Chat Records as Evidence
For AI chat histories to be used as evidence in criminal cases, they must satisfy certain legal requirements, just as ordinary digital evidence does.
The Criminal Procedure Act presupposes that electronic information may also be used as evidence, while treating its reliability and the lawfulness of the collection procedure as important criteria for assessment.
In particular, in the case of digital records, admissibility is determined primarily by reference to the following factors.
Main Criteria for Assessment
• Whether the contents have not been altered or damaged (integrity)
• Whether the collection process followed lawful procedures (lawfulness)
• Whether the contents are reasonably interpreted within the overall context (credibility)
AI chat records may also be evaluated according to these criteria.
For example, various factors are reviewed together, such as who the account user actually is, whether the chat contents have been preserved in their original form, and whether the entire context, rather than a partial excerpt, has been secured.
In other words, AI chat histories may be used as evidence in the same way as existing call records or messages, but they are materials that require more rigorous review in the process of their interpretation and the assessment of their credibility.
Points for Victim Response in Light of the Expanding Use of AI Evidence
As the structure in which digital data and AI records are used as criminal evidence expands in this way, victim response also needs to be approached in a manner different from before.
Because the direction of a case may differ depending on how digital records are secured and utilized, a systematic response to this is required.
Main Issue | Response Direction |
The problem of proving the perpetrator's act and intent | Proving the circumstances of the act and the state of awareness through digital evidence such as AI chat records, messages, and account records |
The possibility of factual distortion due to partial excerpting of digital records | Organizing and submitting materials that reflect the overall flow and chronological context |
The possibility of investigative delay or non-referral due to insufficient evidence | Reinforcing evidence through forensic analysis and securing additional materials |
The problem of claiming damages and securing actual compensation | Establishing a strategy for confirming the perpetrator's assets and for execution, together with pursuing civil litigation |
5. Daeryun Law Firm LLP, a One-Stop Response System
Daeryun Law Firm LLP, through collaboration with its Digital Forensics Center and Evidence Investigation Center, provides integrated support for criminal complaints and damages procedures based on digital evidence, including AI chat records.
By organically combining data analysis, evidence review, and legal interpretation, the firm provides a consistent response system from the investigation stage through to trial and civil procedures.
▶ Proceeding with criminal complaints and responding to investigative agencies based on the secured evidence
▶ Composing materials to prove the perpetrator's awareness of the possibility of death and intent
▶ Filing a claim for damages and proceeding with the procedure based on the investigation results
▶ Securing actual compensation through inquiry into the perpetrator's assets and compulsory execution
If you need assistance in recovering from harm, 🔗Book a Legal Consultation and receive advice tailored to your specific situation.
