A case I handled long ago involved a man who died after being assaulted in a studio apartment complex in Ansung. The police identified three high school students as suspects based on DNA found on a cigarette butt at the scene and obtained confessions from them, promoting the case as a success of scientific investigation.
However, upon reviewing the case after it was sent to the prosecution, an unsettling scene emerged. A boy, arrested on charges of robbery and murder, admitted to the crime but added with a smile, "Actually, we didn’t kill him." Further supplementary investigation revealed shocking results.
A child who had been bullied at school due to a lack of intellectual ability chose to give a false confession under pressure from a police investigator who said, "We will show leniency if you confess." The other two boys, hearing that their friend had already confessed, admitted to a crime they did not commit, believing it was futile to deny it.
All three boys came from economically disadvantaged single-parent families and were unable to afford legal representation or articulate their grievances coherently during the investigation. Thanks to the supplementary investigation by the prosecution, they were able to clear their names and return to school on the first day of the new term.
On August 4, a bill abolishing prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights passed the Cabinet meeting. This bill has already cleared the National Assembly and is set to be implemented soon. The investigative authority will now be centralized under the police, with the prosecution responsible only for indictments and maintaining charges.
The practical implications can be summarized in two main areas. First, there will be delays in procedures. When supplementary investigation is necessary, prosecutors will no longer be able to conduct investigations directly; they must request the police or the newly established Serious Crimes Investigation Agency to carry out supplementary investigations.
As the process of transferring cases between agencies becomes more frequent, the time taken to resolve cases will increase, placing the burden squarely on the parties involved. According to data from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, over 40% of recently transferred cases were handled through direct supplementary investigations by prosecutors, indicating that the gap left by this change is significant.
However, a more fundamental change is the absolute increase in the weight of police investigations. Previously, if there were shortcomings in police investigations, there was an opportunity to correct them at the prosecution stage. Now, that final safety net will structurally disappear. Although prosecutors still have the right to request supplementary investigations, it is questionable whether the relatively less experienced police, under pressure for investigative results, can effectively conduct supplementary investigations, or whether the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, lacking understanding of trial processes, can adequately supplement police investigations.
This gap will be even more detrimental in corporate criminal cases and economic crimes, which often involve complex facts and extensive documentation, rather than in violent crimes. While police have strengths in on-site investigations, they face limitations in handling cases with intricate factual and legal issues.
Meanwhile, corporate criminal risks continue to rise. The recent expansion of the Serious Accident Punishment Act now applies to all workplaces with five or more employees, and starting in June 2026, the names, industries, and causes of accidents at workplaces where serious accidents occur will be disclosed. The Fair Trade Commission has also announced a significant tightening of penalties for collusion, limiting leniency for self-reports and considering business suspensions and registration cancellations for repeat offenders. Furthermore, the statute of limitations for collusion cases will be extended, and the investigative organization dedicated to serious cases will be expanded, suggesting that related investigations will likely become more extensive and prolonged.
So, how should businesses prepare? It is already too late when investigators arrive on the scene. Companies must prioritize the preservation of internal documents and the consistency of statements from involved parties. This means transparently documenting work processes and ensuring that records align with individuals' recollections.
To achieve this, practical departments should regularly check with legal departments to ensure that safety-related documents accurately reflect on-site realities and that the contents of business discussions do not leave room for interpretation as evidence of collusion. Individuals must also be vigilant. It is not uncommon for procedures that begin as witness investigations to suddenly shift to suspect interrogations.
The difference in outcomes between those who understand how statements made during police investigations can be used in future investigations and trials and those who do not can be significant. Whether in a defensive position or seeking to hold others accountable through complaints, it is crucial to accurately understand the criteria for judgment and to respond meticulously from the early stages of the investigation.
In a structure where the next step to rectify injustices has disappeared, being prepared to protect oneself by getting the first step right ultimately determines the outcome of a case.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.