South Korea's special judicial police fear 'investigative vacuum' as prosecutorial guidance ends

A looming change in South Korea's legal system is causing significant unease among special judicial police officers (특사경), who fear a loss of crucial guidance and an increase in personal legal liability. Starting October 2, prosecutors will no longer be able to provide direct investigative guidance to these officers, a change mandated by amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“

I worry that difficult investigations will be avoided. Legal review has entirely depended on prosecutorial guidance. I don't know if I can respond properly going forward. The burden of mistakes is even greater with the creation of the crime of distorting the law.

For many special judicial police officers, who are often administrative officials within local governments or smaller public institutions, this shift represents a daunting prospect. These officers frequently handle specialized areas like food safety, public health, environmental violations, and labor disputes. However, lacking extensive legal training and investigative experience, they have historically relied on prosecutors for direction on complex legal matters, procedural steps, and evidence collection.

"I worry that difficult investigations will be avoided," said one second-year special judicial police officer in a local government, who requested anonymity. "Legal review has entirely depended on prosecutorial guidance. I don't know if I can respond properly going forward. The burden of mistakes is even greater with the creation of the crime of distorting the law."

“

Special judicial police are not legal or investigative experts, so we received guidance and help from prosecutors in all aspects of investigation, such as interviewing witnesses and suspects, and applying for search warrants. 'Guidance and advice' is completely different from 'guidance' in terms of responsibility. It will literally remain advice, and the responsibility will ultimately fall on the individual special judicial police officer, won't it?

While the new regulations propose a shift to a 'cooperative' relationship with prosecutors offering 'guidance and advice,' many officers are skeptical. They fear this advisory role will not provide the necessary support or legal protection, leaving them solely responsible for any procedural errors. This concern is amplified by statistics showing that a significant portion of the approximately 20,000 special judicial police officers have less than a year of experience, with only 8% having worked in the role for over five years.

“

Many local governments lack proper investigative manuals, and it is common for special judicial police to handle other administrative tasks simultaneously. This can lead to cases being buried.

Experts also point to potential issues with institutional capacity, particularly in smaller municipalities where special judicial police duties are often combined with other administrative tasks. This can lead to a lack of specialized training, inadequate manuals, and even cases being mishandled or dropped due to procedural oversights, as reportedly happened in some local governments where cases were dismissed after their statute of limitations expired. The removal of prosecutorial oversight also raises concerns about increased influence from local government heads, potentially leading to biased or lenient investigations.

“

The 'all cases sent' system is closer to not giving independent closing authority than a mechanism to control the investigation process itself. It is necessary to establish measures to prevent undue investigative intervention by administrative agencies, as well as to strengthen the professionalism and legal support for special judicial police.