Park Beom-gye "Prosecutor Investigation Deliberation Committee is a Leniency System"... Ultimately Begins Discussion on Legalization

Ministry of Justice "Will Prepare Legislative Measures After Reviewing Pros and Cons"... Prosecution "Concerns It May Be Seen as Strengthening Prosecution Control"

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The Ministry of Justice has begun discussions to legislate the Prosecutors' Investigation Deliberation Committee. The Investigation Deliberation Committee was introduced to prevent the abuse of prosecutorial authority in cases that attract public attention, but issues such as the criteria for selecting cases for deliberation and the limits of its advisory effect have been exposed. Minister of Justice Park Beom-gye, during his time as a lawmaker, criticized the committee as a "system for leniency" and requested improvements from then-Minister of Justice Choo Mi-ae.

According to the legal community on the 14th, the Ministry of Justice recently responded to the proposal raised during last year's National Assembly audit to establish the legal basis for the Investigation Deliberation Committee through laws and regulations by stating, "We will review the merits and demerits of implementing the committee and then prepare a legislative plan."

Since its establishment in 2018, the Investigation Deliberation Committee has drawn public attention by issuing opinions on whether to continue investigations, file indictments, or dismiss cases in major incidents. Recently, it recommended halting the investigation into the illegal propofol administration allegations against Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong, and last year, it recommended non-prosecution and suspension of investigation regarding Prosecutor General Han Dong-hoon in the Channel A media collusion suspicion case.

However, the committee has been criticized for operating in a "black box" manner, as it is convened at the discretion of the Prosecutor General and does not disclose its deliberations, leading to concerns that it is used to appease public opinion. During last year's audit, ruling party lawmakers repeatedly demanded reforms.

In particular, Minister Park criticized, "The Prosecutor General almost always convened the Investigation Deliberation Committee at his discretion," adding, "It suddenly appeared as an unprecedented prosecutorial system." He also referred to a public opinion survey conducted among law school and law professors nationwide, stating, "This is a system for leniency; it is not properly organized and lacks transparency."

Democratic Party lawmaker Song Ki-heon also mentioned that the Ministry of Justice should take direct action to improve the system through ministerial ordinances. Lawmaker Song said, "Issues like the Investigation Deliberation Committee, which can directly affect citizens, cannot be handled by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office regulations alone," and added, "There should be at least some legal basis in the Criminal Procedure Act. Accordingly, it needs to be formalized into law."

However, the Ministry of Justice's recent position submitted to the National Assembly appears to focus more on enhancing transparency rather than granting the committee's decisions legal authority beyond advisory effect. A Ministry of Justice official explained, "To preserve the purpose of consultative bodies like the Investigation Deliberation Committee, fairness, transparency, and rationality in the decision-making process must be guaranteed," adding, "We intend to promote disclosure and public discussion through regulations higher than internal guidelines."

Nevertheless, there is also a view that the Ministry of Justice aims to strengthen control by transferring the Supreme Prosecutors' Office regulations to the Ministry of Justice. There are concerns that receiving prosecution decisions from an external body with legal authority could lead to long-term prosecutorial control.

A prosecution official stated, "If even a slight binding effect is given to the judgments of committee members who do not review the entire investigation record, it will spark controversy beyond investigation rights adjustment and affect the entire prosecution system," adding, "Concerns about 'black box' operations, such as non-disclosure of committee member lists, have already been raised due to inappropriate contact with case parties and the suppression of free opinion expression."

Meanwhile, the prosecution explained last year that in response to the Civic Coalition for Participation's criticism that the Investigation Deliberation Committee was used by the Prosecutor General to appease public opinion, "Out of a total of 10 cases, 5 were convened at the Prosecutor General's discretion, which was during the tenure of the previous Prosecutor General. Of the remaining 5 cases, 3 were requested by parties involved, and 2 were convened at the request of prosecutors general." Regarding criticism that the Prosecutor General operates the committee based on discretionary judgment, the prosecution rebutted, "The fact that the committee decided to halt the investigation and recommend non-prosecution in the case of Samsung Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong, for whom an arrest warrant was even requested, shows that the committee operates autonomously and independently."

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