On July 31, the National Assembly passed an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law, led by the ruling party, which abolishes the supplementary investigative powers of prosecutors. This marks the end of a 78-year era of prosecutorial investigative authority in South Korea, which has been in place since the establishment of the government. However, concerns about the potential negative effects of this change are being voiced by legal and political circles, indicating that debates over the abolition of supplementary investigative powers will continue for the foreseeable future.
According to legal sources on August 3, the amendment will be promulgated after approval by the Cabinet and is set to take effect on October 2, when the prosecution will be restructured into the Public Prosecution Service and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency. Starting in October, all cases will be investigated by judicial police officers (police and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency) and the High-ranking Officials Crime Investigation Agency, while prosecutors will only be able to request supplementary investigations.
Legal experts are already expressing concerns about the repercussions of this change. Without direct investigative authority or new powers, it will be extremely challenging for prosecutors to prove the truth of charges based solely on existing case records and court hearings.
When defendants present new evidence, alibis, or entirely different facts during the trial that exploit gaps in existing case records, additional on-site investigations, account tracking, or searches will be essential to counter these claims. However, with the investigative function completely removed, prosecutors will be unable to directly address new allegations or rebuttals from the defense and will have to rely solely on previously submitted documents, making it easy to lose the upper hand in court.
Moreover, direct evidence presented in court carries significantly more weight than written case records. If witnesses change their statements in court or if the defense team undermines the credibility of their testimony through rigorous cross-examination, prosecutors may struggle to provide the judge with the level of certainty required to eliminate reasonable doubt, especially if they have not participated in the investigation or conducted supplementary inquiries. Thus, in conditions where prosecutors cannot conduct direct investigations or supplementary inquiries, it will be exceedingly difficult to prove the truth of charges based solely on existing case records when faced with strong rebuttals from the defense.
The newly introduced right to request supplementary investigations, replacing the abolished supplementary investigative powers, is also expected to be contentious. In general, police will be responsible for investigating all crimes, but the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency will handle six major crimes (corruption, economic crimes, defense business, drug offenses, national security, and cybercrime), while the High-ranking Officials Crime Investigation Agency will have primary investigative authority over high-ranking official crimes. If these investigative agencies acknowledge criminal allegations and refer cases, but the Public Prosecution Service determines that prosecution is not warranted, they can request supplementary investigations.
The agency receiving the request must complete the supplementary investigation within one month, and if approved by the prosecutor, within two months, before resubmitting the case. However, if the Public Prosecution Service deems the investigation insufficient, it can request further supplementary investigations without any limit on the number of requests, raising concerns about prolonged cases. Additionally, with many cases assigned to a single judicial police officer, there are doubts about whether supplementary investigations can be completed within one to two months.
A lawyer from Seocho-dong stated in a conversation with Aju Economy, "Extreme confusion is expected. No one knows how severe the impact will be. While the police will do their best, they are likely to lack the investigative capabilities for economic and financial crimes such as corporate technology theft, large-scale financial fraud, and stock manipulation, as they have not dealt with such cases before, and frontline officers are reportedly apprehensive about handling economic crimes."
Concerns are also being raised by academics and civic groups. The Korea Sexual Violence Counseling Center and the Women’s Rights Committee of the Lawyers for a Democratic Society issued a statement after the amendment passed on July 31, pointing out that it does not include measures to protect victims' rights. They criticized the amendment for shifting the burden of challenging procedural flaws, such as inadequate investigations, onto victims, and noted that provisions for notifying victims of investigation progress, hearing their opinions before non-prosecution decisions, and allowing victim participation in trials were not included.
Park Chan-woon, a professor at Hanyang University School of Law and former chair of the Prosecutorial Reform Promotion Committee, stated on Facebook after the amendment's passage, "There is a high likelihood that the Constitutional Court will soon decide the fate of the Criminal Procedure Law. Many prosecutors are expected to file a constitutional dispute with the Constitutional Court aiming for an early amendment of the law, and some citizens may also file constitutional complaints challenging the constitutionality of the amended law."
Sixty-two scholars specializing in criminal law, including Professor Ko Myung-soo from Seoul National University, also issued a statement on July 30, arguing that the prosecutor's supplementary investigative powers should be maintained as a means to oversee and supplement police investigations. They called for a review of the prosecutor's investigative directives, supplementary investigations, and case transfers as methods to control police investigations. They emphasized that the complete abolition of the prosecutor's supplementary investigative powers is not the only solution to prevent the abuse of prosecutorial authority and that the resulting negative effects could be more significant.
In the political arena, concerns continue to be raised, particularly by the opposition party. They argue that the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law amendment will dismantle an 80-year-old judicial system and fail to adequately protect crime victims.
The People Power Party is also preparing additional legal measures, including filing a constitutional complaint. They held a Supreme Council meeting in front of the Blue House, urging President Yoon Suk-yeol to exercise his veto power. At this meeting, Representative Jang Dong-hyuk stated, "When the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law that abolishes supplementary investigative powers was declared passed, it was as if South Korea received a death sentence. Despite widespread opposition from the legal community and the public, the Democratic Party insists that it is a better law."
He added, "Exercising the veto power over this law is not just a choice for the president; it is a mandate from the people and history. If the veto is not exercised, the voices of the public demanding a retrial and impeachment will grow louder."
Lee Jun-seok, leader of the Reform Party, also emphasized at the Supreme Council meeting that "the antagonism with the prosecution is a personal matter for the Democratic Party, but the criminal justice system is a matter for all citizens," urging the president to take action on the veto power.
In contrast, the Democratic Party claims that it has strengthened procedural rights such as the right to appeal and established measures to protect victims. They argue that the separation of investigation and prosecution has decentralized authority and institutionalized checks and balances.
Han Byeong-do, acting leader of the Democratic Party and floor leader, explained at a public briefing on the Criminal Procedure Law amendment that "with the amendment, prosecutors will focus on filing and maintaining charges, while investigations will be entirely handled by investigative agencies. This prevents investigative agencies from passing cases back and forth and enhances the protection of victims' rights."
He criticized the People Power Party for dragging the president into the debate over the amendment, stating, "Despite being a measure to protect the public, the People Power Party is irresponsibly inciting public anxiety with baseless rumors and attempting to reverse prosecutorial reform."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.