The ruling Democratic Party of Korea has proposed a complete abolition of the prosecutorial investigative powers, prompting the Supreme Court to issue its first official stance, stating that "safeguards must be established to prevent adverse effects."
On July 12, according to Shin Dong-wook, a member of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee from the People Power Party, the Supreme Court's Administrative Office recently submitted a review opinion on the proposed amendments to the criminal procedure law, introduced by Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min and Park Eun-jung of the Justice Party.
The proposed amendments by the Democratic Party aim to entirely eliminate the direct investigative powers and supplementary investigative powers of prosecutors, leaving only the 'request for supplementary investigation' intact. The amendments also seek to abolish the prosecutorial authority over special judicial police and significantly limit the scope of prosecutors' direct warrant requests.
In its opinion, the Administrative Office stated, "The National Assembly must closely examine the pros and cons of institutional changes regarding the adjustment of powers among investigative agencies, as well as the diverse opinions of the public and experts," adding that it is a matter that requires careful deliberation and legislative policy decisions. It emphasized the need for sufficient safeguards to prevent potential adverse effects arising from institutional changes.
Conversely, the proposal to establish prosecution review committees in local courts to decide on the appropriateness of indictments raised clear concerns. The Administrative Office noted, "The appropriateness of indictments can be controlled through trials after charges are filed, and decisions not to prosecute can be challenged through retrials," warning that if courts operate prosecution review committees, it may hinder judges from making independent decisions in future rulings.
However, the Administrative Office expressed strong support for the introduction of 'conditional release and bail systems' and 'preliminary hearings for search and seizure warrants' included in the amendments.
Regarding the conditional release system, the Administrative Office stated, "It can correct the societal misconception that 'detention equals punishment' and practically implement the principles of non-custodial investigation and presumption of innocence." By imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring or residence restrictions, it believes that it can maintain investigative efficiency while enabling practices seen in advanced countries.
On the preliminary hearing for search and seizure warrants, it remarked, "Previous written hearings did not provide a way to resolve questions about the requirements or scope of warrants," predicting that the introduction of preliminary hearings would prevent 'exploratory searches' conducted without specific allegations and encourage more careful investigations. It countered concerns about hindering the confidentiality of investigations by stating that closed hearings could actually reduce the time spent on dismissals or reapplications for investigations.
However, it urged caution regarding the proposal to allow defendants to request retrials for deferred prosecution, citing potential inefficiencies in the distribution of judicial resources and the possibility of prolonged rights protection procedures.
Additionally, it pointed out that expanding the current retrial requests, which are only available to complainants, to include informants could lead to prolonged instability for the accused due to indiscriminate challenges from complainants, increasing social dispute costs.
Nonetheless, it suggested that a more refined legislative alternative is needed to selectively allow retrial requests from informants in specific crimes such as child abuse, domestic violence, and abuse of the disabled, where mandatory reporting is required.
Recently, the ruling Democratic Party has been actively pursuing amendments to the criminal procedure law aimed at abolishing the supplementary investigative powers of prosecutors. Initially, there was conflict with the government over the necessity of retaining these powers, but on June 25, the government decided to support the abolition, and the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee is currently reviewing the proposals.
However, following the recent case of the murder of a high school girl in Gwangju, which raised concerns about police mishandling of the investigation and evidence destruction, public opinion, particularly from the opposition, has shifted towards the necessity of maintaining supplementary investigative powers, leading to ongoing disagreements between the ruling and opposition parties over this issue.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.