Prosecutor General's Office Rules on Public Officials Corruption Investigation Unit Cases: 'Conditional Transfer and Police Warrant Application' Regulation... "No Basis"

Seoul Seocho-dong Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Supreme Prosecutors' Office has expressed strong opposition to the procedural rules for cases enacted and promulgated by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO).

On the 4th, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office stated in a press release distributed to reporters, "The 'CIO Case Procedural Rules,' which include provisions such as 'transfer with reserved prosecution rights,' create new criminal procedures without legal grounds, potentially violating the principle of due process and conflicting significantly with our criminal justice system."

Furthermore, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office pointed out, "The regulation requiring judicial police officers to apply for warrants from the CIO regarding crimes committed by prosecutors and other high-ranking officials directly conflicts with the Criminal Procedure Act and raises concerns about hindering the defense rights of parties involved in cases."

They added, "The provision allowing the CIO to make non-prosecution decisions on cases that must be sent to the prosecution after investigation lacks legal basis and may cause confusion among complainants and other parties involved."

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office reiterated, "It is inconsistent with our Constitution and legal framework to stipulate contents in the CIO Case Procedural Rules?an internal regulation without external binding force?that affect citizens' rights and duties or the duties of other state agencies, and it may cause unnecessary practical confusion."

They continued, "We hope that in the future, the prosecution, police, and CIO will cooperate organically and efficiently utilize their respective authorities under the law to jointly contribute to maintaining and strengthening the nation's anti-corruption response capabilities."

Recently, the CIO explicitly codified the 'transfer with reserved prosecution rights' in the procedural rules, which had caused conflicts with the prosecution over the cases involving Lee Seong-yoon, Chief Prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, and Lee Gyu-won, former prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Past Affairs Investigation Division.

Previously, the CIO re-transferred the cases concerning these two individuals to the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, requesting, "Please send the cases back after completing the investigation so that the CIO can decide whether to prosecute."

However, the prosecution judged that there was no legal basis for the CIO's request and directly indicted Prosecutor Lee.

The prosecution's stance is that the subject of transfer is the 'case,' and once the prosecution re-transfers a case it had previously transferred to the CIO, the CIO can no longer be involved in the case.

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office also holds that the provision allowing the CIO to investigate but not prosecute cases related to the President, members of the National Assembly, and others, and to send case records to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office after deciding on prosecution or non-prosecution, lacks legal basis.

The core of the controversy lies in how to view the legal nature of the CIO rules.

The CIO claims that its rules have the effect equivalent to a Presidential Decree, citing the legislative process as the basis.

In the bill proposed by Assemblywoman Baek Hye-ryun, which formed the foundation of the CIO Act, matters necessary for the organization and operation of the investigation office were to be determined by 'Presidential Decree.' However, during the National Assembly's deliberation process, to guarantee the institutional independence of the investigation office, this was revised and approved to be determined by 'CIO rules.'

However, generally, among constitutional institutions, entities like the Supreme Court or the National Election Commission, which have the authority to enact procedural rules directly stipulated in the Constitution, are regarded as issuing 'statutory orders' that can restrict citizens' fundamental rights. In contrast, institutions like the Board of Audit and Inspection, whose rule-making authority is stipulated by law (Audit and Inspection Act) rather than the Constitution, are considered to issue administrative rules that regulate internal procedural matters.

Among the conflicting positions of the two institutions, the issue of 'transfer with reserved prosecution rights' is expected to be primarily decided in the trial of Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won, which begins this week. The court's decision will hinge on whether it questions the prosecution's authority and issues a 'dismissal of prosecution' ruling or proceeds on the premise that the prosecution's indictment is valid.

Additionally, through the constitutional complaint case filed by Prosecutor Lee with the Constitutional Court, a judicial ruling on the authorities of the two institutions concerning transfer and re-transfer under the CIO Act is anticipated.

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