I tried to break into a neighbor's house...Police take action to return home even after reporting electronic anklets.

ⓒYTN

The police, who did not arrest an electronic anklet of a sex offender in his 40s who tried to break into a neighbor's house through a veranda, is controversial.

The Gyeonggi Nambu Police Agency said on the 6th that police officers from Pyeongtaek District had known since they discovered the wearing of electronic anklets by suspect A, who was booked on charges of home invasion.

A is accused of sneaking into the house of B, a woman living in an apartment in Pyeongtaek at around 10:50 p.m. on the 29th of last month. He is also accused of stepping on the outdoor unit of the air conditioner and going up to the outside of the veranda and attempting to open the outer window of the double window about 10cm to enter the interior.

At that time, there were only B and young children in the house, and A ran away when B shouted, "Who is it?"The police, who were dispatched after receiving a report of

, identified A living in the same apartment complex as a suspect at around 0:20 the next day, about an hour and a half after the incident.

When the police officers came to the house, A confessed to the crime, saying, "Let's go out and talk."

At that time, the police witnessed A's ankle being filled with an electronic anklet, and found that A was a sex offender. However, he did not arrest A urgently because the matter was not serious, and he brought him to the district office in a voluntary manner and took measures to return home after a brief investigation.

Upon learning this, B took his young children to another family's house and reportedly wanted to move, complaining of anxiety.

Initially, the police said they learned later about whether A wore an electronic anklet. He explained that he had no choice but to secure a recruit because it was too late to arrest him because he learned about A's history of sexual crimes after voluntary accompanying him.

But this turned out to be untrue.

A police official explained, "There was only a mistake in the process of checking the facts against the people in charge to respond to the media, but there was no intention of lying."

"The dispatched police officer recognized that A was a wearer of an electronic anklet, but decided that it was not an emergency arrest due to its low urgency," he added. "We are preparing measures to prevent such an incident from happening again."

The police applied for a preliminary arrest warrant for A on the 3rd, five days after the incident, and the interrogation of the suspect before the arrest will be held soon.

Reporter Lee Yu Na from Digital News Team.