South Korea Debates Criminal Procedure Act Revision, Sparking Fears of Justice System Collapse

South Korea's criminal justice system faces a critical juncture as lawmakers debate a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act, potentially stripping prosecutors of their supplementary investigation rights. The proposed changes, spearheaded by the Democratic Party, stem from deep-seated distrust in the prosecution, particularly following high-profile cases involving the presidential office.

“

You can't build a house on sand. No matter how many pillars you erect or how tightly you pack the rebar, a house cannot withstand a sandy foundation. This is why the discussion surrounding supplementary investigation rights in the lead-up to the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act is futile.

The core of the debate lies in the "supplementary investigation rights," which allow prosecutors to request further investigation from the police. Critics argue that abolishing these rights, while seemingly aimed at curbing prosecutorial overreach, could cripple the system. Data shows a significant increase in cases per police officer and a doubling of average case processing times since the 2020 investigation rights reform, despite no surge in crime rates. This has led to widespread complaints from crime victims about delayed or inadequate investigations.

Proponents of the revision, however, contend that the current system, where prosecutors can request supplementary investigations, is essential for uncovering the truth and ensuring checks and balances. They point to past instances where prosecutors allegedly misused their power, citing the dismissal of cases involving the first lady and a stock manipulation scheme, while aggressively pursuing critics of the former president. This perceived bias has fueled the public's demand to limit prosecutorial power.

“

The number of cases per police officer has significantly increased from 108.4 in 2020 to 133.8 in 2025. The average processing time for all cases has more than doubled from 142.1 days in 2020 to 312.7 days in 2024.

The Democratic Party has proposed amendments to address concerns, allowing the chief prosecutor to request the replacement of investigators who fail to comply with supplementary investigation requests. However, critics argue this offers little practical change, as prosecutors already have the power to request disciplinary action, which can lead to investigator reassignment. The proposed one-month limit for police supplementary investigations is also seen as insufficient, given that 38.8% of such requests currently exceed the three-month limit.

“

The belief that prosecutors should not be left with any investigative authority has overshadowed the reform, concentrating the discussion on supplementary investigation rights.

Experts warn that focusing solely on abolishing supplementary investigation rights, without a thorough evaluation of past reforms and their consequences, will likely lead to further deterioration of the criminal justice environment. The article suggests that the current impasse is partly a consequence of the prosecution's own actions, which have eroded public trust. Lawmakers are urged to engage in a more substantive discussion to find a solution that balances investigative powers and ensures a functional justice system.

“

The prosecution's behavior has led to a lack of trust, which is understandable in its development into a belief that prosecutors should not be left with any investigative authority.