"A Crack in the System Where Prosecutors Only 'Cherry-Pick' Shining Cases"

South Korea has taken a historic step in reforming its criminal justice system with the National Assembly's passage of a revised criminal procedure law, effectively separating investigative and prosecutorial powers. This landmark legislation, which abolishes prosecutors' direct investigative authority, marks the first fundamental change to the core framework of the nation's criminal justice system since its establishment in 1954. The reform is viewed as a significant break from a system heavily influenced by Japan's model, which critics argued created a "paradise for prosecutors" for over seven decades.

The path to this reform was fraught with debate, particularly within reformist circles, over the extent of the prosecution's remaining investigative functions. While some organizations opposed the complete abolition of supplementary investigative powers, others remained silent. Notably, People's Solidarity for Participatory Self-Government (PSPW) consistently advocated for the complete elimination of prosecutors' investigative powers. Yoo Seung-ik, director of PSPW's Judicial Watch Center, described the passage as a "crack" in a system that allowed prosecutors to "cherry-pick" cases.

“

It really passed. It's a historic moment.

Discussions within reformist groups, such as the Lawyers for Democratic Society (Minbyun), revealed differing opinions, especially among younger lawyers who were less engaged in prosecutorial reform. PSPW, however, found broader consensus among its members and executive committee, particularly after the "Yoon Seok-yeol incident" (referring to a political controversy involving the current president when he was prosecutor general). The consensus was that the prosecution's organization needed to be scaled back, which necessitated abolishing investigative powers to allow personnel to transition out of investigative roles.

“

This is the first time in 72 years that the basic framework of our criminal justice system, which was a kind of 'paradise for prosecutors' modeled after Japan's, has actually cracked.

PSPW had proposed a model involving the creation of a National Investigation Agency, separating investigative functions from the police and establishing a National Investigation Committee for civilian oversight due to the potential expansion of police authority. While this proposal was part of an earlier draft by the Democratic Party, it was ultimately shelved. The article suggests that had the prosecution and investigation laws been drafted concurrently and with a clear principle against prosecutors' direct investigative powers, the ensuing year-long controversy could have been avoided.

Looking ahead, the effective implementation of the new law hinges on the executive branch. Yoo Seung-ik expressed uncertainty about the progress of the preparatory committee for the establishment of the new prosecution service. He highlighted the need to revise numerous presidential decrees, enforcement rules, and internal regulations, including investigative standards that were previously based on the prosecution's investigative powers. The prosecution's insistence on retaining the National Digital Forensics Center and crime information functions, even without investigative authority, is seen as an attempt to preserve its organizational structure through a "devious logic" of organizational preservation, rather than a genuine need for cross-verification.

“

The prosecution is trying to maintain the National Digital Forensics Center (NDFC) and crime information functions. It's unbelievable. It makes no sense for an organization that doesn't investigate to continue collecting crime information.