"Welcome" vs "Concern"... Mixed Reactions from Prosecutors to Legal and Prosecution Reform Committee's Recommendation on Prosecutor Personnel Reform

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] Reactions among current and former prosecutors are divided over the reform recommendations for the prosecutor personnel system announced by the Ministry of Justice’s Prosecutor and Prosecution Reform Committee (hereinafter the Reform Committee).

While some view the recommendations positively as a way to eliminate the problematic practice of ranking prosecutors through frequent transfers and to break the promotion monopoly held by prosecutors in special, public security, and planning divisions, others express concerns about the government’s increasing control over the prosecution. Some even suspect that the recommendations are a preliminary move to support Justice Minister Choo Mi-ae ahead of the prosecution personnel reshuffle expected as early as July.

On the 19th, contrasting reactions emerged within and outside the prosecution regarding the Reform Committee’s recommendation titled “Reforming the Prosecutor Personnel System for the Fair Exercise of Prosecutorial Power,” announced the previous day.

◆Generally Positive Evaluation of Strengthening Criminal and Trial Divisions=Strengthening the criminal and trial divisions has been a consistent topic in prosecution reform discussions. However, the current reform plan is more concrete than ever before.

Current prosecutors generally gave positive evaluations to the recommendation that more than three-fifths of chief prosecutors of criminal and trial divisions at district prosecutor’s offices, first deputy prosecutors who oversee criminal divisions, heads of the criminal and trial divisions at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, as well as more than three-fifths of prosecutors general or branch chiefs, should be appointed from prosecutors with experience in criminal and trial divisions.

A chief prosecutor A at a metropolitan branch office said, “There have been many cases where prosecutors who failed to be promoted to chief in special investigation units or other investigative departments were suddenly appointed as heads of criminal divisions. It is true that this led to problems in understanding the work and efficiency, as they had to suddenly approve complaints and accusations they had not handled for over ten years.”

◆Calls to Consider the Unique Nature of the Prosecution Organization=On the other hand, lawyer B, a former director of the Ministry of Justice’s Prosecution Bureau overseeing personnel, said, “In reality, outstanding prosecutors working in the criminal division have been selected and assigned to investigative departments such as special investigation units. If the recommendations are implemented as is, special and public security prosecutors might be disadvantaged in promotions to prosecutors general.”

Criticism was also raised regarding the feasibility of abolishing rank promotions for managerial positions such as deputy and chief prosecutors, introducing a rotation system for prosecutors general, and implementing a regional prosecutor system that allows prosecutors to work continuously in certain areas for their livelihood stability.

Lawyer C, a former head of the Financial District Prosecutor’s Office, said, “Unlike courts where the chief judge cannot interfere with the trials of subordinate judges, the prosecution fundamentally requires a unified investigative standard under a strict command hierarchy. To prevent inconsistent outcomes?such as one prosecutor ordering detention while another orders release on similar cases, or fines varying from 1 million won to 5 million won?guidance from chief or deputy prosecutors is necessary.”

Lawyer B added, “I understand that calls for reforming the court’s regional assignment system have been ongoing. The need for a rotation system to prevent collusion with local power groups is even stronger in the prosecution than in the courts.”

Conversely, chief prosecutor D said, “Once the system is introduced, prosecutors found to have collusive relationships can be punished. There’s no need to be afraid of potential problems and avoid implementing the system.”

◆Concerns Over Substantive Authority of the Prosecutor Personnel Committee=Meanwhile, concerns were raised about the recommendation to amend the Prosecutors’ Office Act to grant the Prosecutor Personnel Committee, which has so far discussed basic principles and standards of personnel, substantive deliberation authority over appointments of prosecutors general and transfers of prosecutors.

Chief prosecutor E said, “The biggest problem in the recommendations is the plan to make the Prosecutor Personnel Committee a decision-making body. Although it is said that more than half of the members will be external personnel, I suspect the committee will be composed of government-friendly figures such as lawyers from the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, effectively controlling prosecutor personnel.”

There is speculation within prosecution circles that the regular personnel reshuffle, usually held in August, will be moved up to July. The Reform Committee recommended immediate implementation from the next personnel reshuffle of measures such as appointing more than three-fifths of prosecutors general or branch chiefs from prosecutors with criminal and trial division experience.

The Ministry of Justice stated immediately after the Reform Committee’s announcement, “We fully agree on the need to improve the prosecutor personnel system and plan to review and promote additional improvement measures by referring to the Reform Committee’s recommendations.”

Considering the overall situation, a critical view is emerging that the recommendations might be a preliminary move to support Minister Choo, who has been at odds with the prosecution over reform methods and pace, ahead of a dramatic personnel reshuffle in July.

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