A child disappears
On the evening of January 29, 1991, Lee Hyung-ho was playing outside the Hyundai Apartment complex in Apgujeong-dong, Gangnam, Seoul. He was nine years old and in elementary school. When his family went to bring him home, the playground was empty.
At about 11 p.m. that night, a man called the family and said he had Hyung-ho. The caller demanded 70 million won and instructed the family to obtain a car equipped with a telephone. It was the beginning of a prolonged series of communications that would become one of South Korea's best-known unresolved kidnapping cases.
Weeks of ransom calls
Over roughly six weeks, the caller contacted Lee's family more than 60 times. He repeatedly changed instructions and ransom-drop locations across Seoul, at times directing the family toward Gimpo Airport, Chungmuro and other locations. Police attempted surveillance and tracing, but the caller appeared alert to their movements.
Some instructions involved bank deposits and hidden notes. At least one attempted bank withdrawal produced a witness description, but no suspect was identified through it. The operation generated a large volume of investigative material without establishing who had taken Hyung-ho.
Discovery on March 13
On March 13, 1991, 44 days after the disappearance, workers found Lee's body in a drainage area near the Han River in Jamsil. An autopsy concluded that he had died of suffocation. Investigators also concluded that he had probably been killed very soon after the kidnapping, meaning that the later ransom calls continued after his death.
The discovery changed the case from a kidnapping investigation into a murder investigation, but it did not reveal the caller's identity.
Suspects without a conviction
Police investigated people who had knowledge of the family's circumstances and examined potential financial motives. One relative became a significant focus of suspicion, but investigators lacked physical evidence sufficient to prove involvement and he was not convicted. Other leads also failed to establish a prosecutable perpetrator.
This distinction is essential: suspicion generated during an investigation is not a criminal judgment. No reviewed source establishes that any identified person was finally convicted of kidnapping or killing Lee Hyung-ho.
The recorded voice
The kidnapper's voice became one of the most enduring pieces of the case. The calls were recorded, analyzed and later broadcast in attempts to generate leads. The recordings contributed to the case's lasting public recognition and eventually inspired the 2007 film Voice of a Murderer.
Public attention did not produce a judicial resolution. By 2006, South Korea's then-applicable 15-year statute of limitations for the case had expired. Contemporary retrospective reporting describes the case as officially closed and still unsolved.
Timeline
January 29, 1991: Lee Hyung-ho disappears from the playground of the Hyundai Apartment complex in Apgujeong-dong.
January 29, 1991: the first ransom call reaches his family, demanding 70 million won.
January–February 1991: more than 60 calls and multiple ransom instructions lead the family and police across Seoul.
March 13, 1991: Lee's body is discovered near the Han River in Jamsil, 44 days after the kidnapping.
1991–2006: police investigate numerous leads but do not identify a perpetrator who can be convicted.
January 2006: the former 15-year statute of limitations expires without a prosecution.
2025–2026: major Korean news retrospectives continue to describe the kidnapping and murder as unresolved.
Current status
The case is classified as unsolved / cold case. Lee Hyung-ho's kidnapper and killer were never judicially identified. The reviewed record shows no later conviction, and reputable Korean reporting in 2025 and 2026 continued to treat the case as unresolved.
Sources
- Korea JoongAng Daily — detailed reconstruction and current cold-case status, September 30, 2025
- Seoul Economic Daily — 35-year retrospective on the unresolved case, January 29, 2026
- The Korea Times — retrospective confirming the unresolved status and expiration of the former limitation period, February 18, 2016