[Column] Hollowed-Out Corruption Investigation Office

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The personnel selection process for the High-ranking Officials' Crime Investigation Office (Gong-su-cheo) has entered its final stage. Although interviews for chief prosecutors and evaluations by the personnel committee remain, considering that all schedules will be completed within this week, the hardware setup for investigations is virtually complete.

The selection of the first investigation case has also become possible. Since the recruitment of investigators will only be completed by mid-next month, there is no problem in selecting cases with just regular prosecutors and chief prosecutors.

However, it still seems premature to start investigations using the Gong-su-cheo Act, which revealed loopholes after its launch. Although it was decided to proceed with adjusting the authority among investigative agencies through a 'tripartite consultative body' involving the prosecution and police, which was formed more than two months after the launch, power struggles have already begun, making it difficult to find a consensus in the short term.

Above all, opposition from the prosecution regarding the prosecutors' jurisdiction over indictments is inevitable. During the process of re-referring the illegal departure ban case of former Deputy Minister of Justice Kim Hak-ui, serious disagreements between the two agencies arose over the indictment authority concerning Seoul Central District Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon and Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won.

There is no clear standard on whether, after Gong-su-cheo refers a prosecutor-related case to the prosecution, the investigation is entrusted to the prosecution while Gong-su-cheo handles the indictment, or whether both investigation and indictment are handed over to the prosecution, making the very commencement of investigations a controversial issue.

It is also concerning that Gong-su-cheo plans to reflect the contents organized through the 'tripartite consultative body' in the case and office regulations. This can be interpreted as an intention to start investigations before establishing the rules that embody Gong-su-cheo's operational principles, which may cause it to lose legitimacy from the outset of investigations.

Legal circles analyze this as a tragedy foreseen since the hasty passage of the Gong-su-cheo Act. While the Constitutional Court recognized the legitimacy of the Gong-su-cheo Act, it pointed out that the referral request authority could be used arbitrarily, suggesting that Gong-su-cheo should have first developed its software before launching forcefully.

This is also why cases are expected to flood in, viewing Gong-su-cheo as a refuge from investigations. Prosecutor Lee Seong-yoon has repeatedly insisted that the case he is subject to referral to Gong-su-cheo, which he refused to appear for prosecution, and the case Gong-su-cheo re-referred to Suwon District Prosecutor's Office should be referred back to Gong-su-cheo.

Meanwhile, cases submitted to Gong-su-cheo continue to accumulate. Ultimately, if Gong-su-cheo does not actively coordinate in the consultative body starting today, cases involving judges or prosecutors, which amount to about 3,000 annually, will also pile up. We look forward to Gong-su-cheo's judgment for those who have volunteered to become members to serve at Gong-su-cheo and those who have waited 25 years after legislative petitions.

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