South Korea's proposed legal amendment faces questions on effectiveness

A proposed amendment to South Korea's Criminal Procedure Act, designed to mitigate the repercussions of abolishing supplementary investigation rights, is facing skepticism from legal professionals regarding its practical effectiveness. While the amendment aims to bolster oversight of investigative bodies, some experts argue its provisions are unrealistic and could exacerbate existing problems.

“

The one-month deadline for supplementary investigation requests is unrealistic, as many cases already exceed three months. This will inevitably lead to the prolongation of the overall investigation period, deepening the problems of investigation delays and reduced investigative quality.

Key concerns center on the proposed one-month deadline for completing supplementary investigations. Yang Hong-seok, a former advisory member of the prosecution reform task force, argued on Facebook that this timeframe is "unrealistic," noting that many cases already exceed three months. He predicts this could lead to police being unable to fulfill requests properly, resulting in a cycle of repeated supplementary demands and flawed execution. "This will inevitably lead to the prolongation of the overall investigation period, deepening the problems of investigation delays and reduced investigative quality," Yang stated.

The amendment also grants the authority to request the designation or change of the police officer or investigative agency responsible for supplementary investigations. While this aspect could partially substitute for direct supplementary investigations by prosecutors, legal experts like Kim Gyu-hyun caution that changing the investigative lead could necessitate a complete re-familiarization with the case, potentially causing further delays. Kim described this provision as having "many side effects, such as case ping-pong, making it similarly insufficient."

“

This provision also has many side effects, such as case ping-pong, making it similarly insufficient.

Yang further pointed out that while the amendment prevents police from refusing prosecutors' requests for supplementary investigations, the core issue remains the police's potential failure to execute these requests diligently or promptly. "The problem is that the police do not implement supplementary investigations as requested, but rather handle them poorly and with delays," he said, reiterating that "poor execution and delays are the problem."

“

The problem is that the police do not implement supplementary investigations as requested, but rather handle them poorly and with delays. Poor execution and delays are the problem.

Conversely, Yoo Seung-ik, a visiting professor of law at Myongji University, offered a more positive assessment. Yoo praised the amendment for strengthening investigative oversight while upholding the principle of separating investigation and prosecution. He believes that mandating the transfer of cases to another investigative body when issues arise within one agency is the "best" approach for controlling police and other investigative entities.

“

This amendment strengthens investigative oversight while upholding the principle of separating investigation and prosecution. Mandating the transfer of cases when issues arise is the best approach for controlling police.