"Over 60% of Prosecutor Heads Appointed from Criminal and Trial Divisions"… Ministry of Justice and Prosecution Reform Committee Recommendations Announced

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Ministry of Justice's Justice and Prosecution Reform Committee recommended that more than 60% of heads of institutions, such as chief prosecutors and branch chiefs (at least autonomous branch offices), be appointed from prosecutors with experience in criminal and trial divisions.

On the 18th, the Justice and Prosecution Reform Committee announced the 18th recommendation, which included this content, at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office press room in Seocho-dong, Seoul.

First, the committee recommended adding the requirement that heads of criminal and trial divisions at all prosecution offices nationwide and chiefs of the criminal and trial litigation departments at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office must have "at least two-thirds of their service period in the criminal and trial divisions handling criminal cases."

The committee explained that this proposal aims to resolve the monopoly of special, public security, and planning fields in prosecutor promotions and to address the issue of lining up prosecutors during dedicated assignments. They also believed it is appropriate for prosecutors who have sufficiently accumulated experience in criminal and trial divisions to manage those divisions.

They also recommended immediate implementation from the next prosecutor personnel appointment. According to the legal community, the prosecution personnel reshuffle is likely to take place in July.

Additionally, the committee recommended that the first deputy chief prosecutors of district and branch offices, who mainly supervise criminal and trial divisions, be appointed from prosecutors who meet the requirements to serve as heads of criminal and trial divisions. They suggested that transitional provisions could be established within the scope that does not undermine the principles and intent, but prosecutors meeting these experience requirements should be prioritized when appointing heads of criminal and trial divisions.

Furthermore, from the next prosecutor personnel reshuffle, the committee recommended appointing more than three-fifths of institution heads, such as chief prosecutors and branch chiefs, from prosecutors with criminal and trial division experience, reflecting the proportion of prosecutors by field within the entire prosecution. For managers of specialized departments, such as the Women and Child Crime Investigation Division, they recommended establishing experience requirements and expertise in the relevant specialized field as conditions for appointment.

The committee also advised minimizing prosecutor transfers.

They recommended that the Prosecution Personnel Committee review transfer proposals to prevent transfers involving changes in work location from being used as a means of controlling prosecutors, and that prosecutors wishing to work at district offices in local areas be allowed to continue working at prosecution offices within the jurisdiction of those district offices without time limits, prioritizing the implementation of such a system.

Moreover, for prosecutors wishing to work at district offices in Seoul and the metropolitan area, they proposed implementing a local work mileage system that requires them to work for a certain period at prosecution offices in local areas where there is a shortage of applicants. They also suggested increasing the mandatory service period at local prosecution offices to 3-4 years for ordinary prosecutors and 2 years immediately after appointment for chief prosecutors, clearly stipulating these periods, and minimizing transfers by allowing extended service even at non-competitive prosecution offices in Seoul and the metropolitan area.

On the other hand, the committee stated that the introduction of a regional prosecutor system is necessary in the mid to long term.

The regional prosecutor system divides prosecution offices nationwide into regions based on nearby living areas and, in principle, prosecutors continue to work at the same prosecution office, but transfers within a certain region are allowed when necessary for personnel supply and demand.

In addition, they proposed regularizing Prosecution Personnel Committee meetings to once a month and moving beyond the existing method of reviewing abstract "principles and standards" for personnel to practically review specific appointment plans for new prosecutors and chief prosecutor appointments.

They recommended extending the evaluation cycle of prosecutors' service performance to one year, reducing the evaluation stages to three levels: "excellent - average - insufficient," and abolishing mandatory ratios for each evaluation stage.

They also suggested notifying all evaluated prosecutors of their entire service evaluation results, establishing an objection system for evaluation results, and having the Prosecution Personnel Committee review cases where objections are not resolved through the objection process.

Furthermore, they recommended significantly expanding the authority of senior prosecutors with more than eight years of experience by introducing a single prosecutor system that grants decision-making authority over cases except for those judged by court panels. They also expressed the opinion that institution heads should be appointed on a fixed-term basis from among those who have worked in the relevant area for a certain period without transfers, and after their term, they should be able to return to work as prosecutors, suggesting the need to introduce a rotation system for institution heads.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.