Amid ongoing controversy over the abolition of the prosecution's supplementary investigation authority, Kim Jin-joo, the victim of the Busan kick incident, directly refuted claims made by some media outlets.
On August 5, Kim took to her social media to respond to an article stating that the revelation of sexual crimes in the Busan kick incident was not due to a supplementary investigation by the prosecution.
She stated, "I have to say this repeatedly: it was the prosecution that did this. The prosecution changed the charges to include attempted murder and rape, which is a significant achievement." She added, "Do you know how difficult it is to change the charges? If you don't know, at least do your research before writing. The victim doesn't even have a lawyer, so how can a victim's attorney express an opinion?"
Following her post, it quickly gained traction online.
Netizens reacted with comments such as, "The government is doing everything to change public opinion," and "For reference, the Lee Eun-hae case was initially dismissed by the police, but after six months of supplementary investigation prompted by tips from an insurance company and acquaintances, the planned murder was uncovered." Others expressed concerns, saying, "Isn't this putting the public at risk just to protect one corrupt politician?"
One user criticized Kim, saying, "Has the victim of the Busan kick incident even read the amended criminal procedure law? Does she realize she is being used as a political tool by the prosecution and the People Power Party? If you want to make a claim, shouldn't you examine the relevant details carefully? Don't incite hatred instead of sympathy."
In response, Kim shot back, "I have read the criminal procedure law. It's 112 pages. Get a grip. If you want to make a claim, do some research first. What will you say now? I have read it, but you haven't?"
She also shared an article highlighting President Yoon Suk Yeol's recent statement, "I have not read the amended criminal procedure law."
This controversy has intensified in light of the recent passage of the amended criminal procedure law in the National Assembly.
Previously, the National Assembly passed a bill that completely abolishes the prosecution's supplementary investigation authority. This reform aims to eliminate the prosecution's direct investigation and supplementary investigation functions, while establishing a serious crime investigation agency and a public prosecution office.
Concerns about personnel loss and investigative gaps have been raised within the prosecution and police, and voices of concern have emerged online across political lines.
In male-dominated communities, comments included, "The system that provided the highest level of legal services to victims has been dismantled to save one person," and "To avoid being investigated, they have jeopardized public safety."
In female-dominated communities, reactions included, "I will never vote for the Democratic Party again," and "They changed the system without any measures to address public safety gaps," and "If this continues, we will have no choice but to hand over power." Many expressed a desire to judge based on policies rather than party affiliation.
As the significant overhaul of the investigation system, including the abolition of the prosecutor's office and the establishment of a serious crime investigation agency and public prosecution office, approaches, concerns about the reallocation of roles between the prosecution and police, as well as diminished on-site response capabilities, are expected to continue. This controversy surrounding the Busan kick incident is likely to lead to further debate over the appropriateness of the system reform.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.