By Kim Tae-jong
Staff Reporter
Wrapping up their investigation into the suspected arsonist who confessed to setting fire to Namdaemun, police referred the suspect to prosecutors Tuesday.
Police concluded that the 70-year-old man, identified by his surname Chae committed the crime alone out of anger against the government over a land compensation dispute.
However, the suspect, emerging from Namdaemun Police Station to board a transferring vehicle, told reporters that he felt victimized.
``I was unfairly treated. I will disclose all at the prosecution,'' he said.
His remarks contrast with his initial confession to the crime. But he did not elaborate.
Police said that Chae had confessed to setting fire to the iconic 610-year-old wooden gate after hours of questioning and he felt sorry for the catastrophe.
After the Seoul Central District Court issued an arrest warrant for the suspect last week, he was transferred to a Seoul corrections center from Namdaemun Police Station.
His previous arson attack on a cultural heritage site allowed police to trace him to the home of his former wife late Monday on Ganghwa Island, northwest of Seoul, where they apprehended him.
With the same grievance, the senior citizen set a fire to part of Changgyeong Palace in Seoul, a world heritage site, which led to him getting an 18-month jail sentence suspended for two years and being fined 13 million won.
During their search of the house, police found a bottle of paint thinner, an aluminum ladder as well as clothes and gloves, which were used in the arson.
The police also said that they had secured decisive evidence confirming his crime such as a substance on the surface of his shoes which matched the floor of Sungnyemun. They had also obtained footage from a CCTV installed on some buildings around Namdaemun on the day of the incident, showing him at the crime scene.
Police raided Junggu Ward Office Tuesday as part of its investigation into the fire at Namdaemun. The municipal district under the city government is in charge of maintenance of the gate as it is located there. There have been allegations that the municipal office neglected to maintain the 610-year-old gate in a proper manner.