Prosecutors' Office: "Ministry of Justice's Proposed Prosecutor Organization Reform Plan May Be Illegal"... "Difficult to Accept Minister's 'Investigation Approval'"

"Investigation Control Measures Should Be Established by Prosecutor General's Regulations or Guidelines"
"An Anti-Corruption Investigation Division Should Be Established at Busan District Prosecutors' Office"

Seoul Seocho-dong Supreme Prosecutors' Office building.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin] The Supreme Prosecutors' Office officially expressed its opposition on the 8th to the prosecution office reorganization plan recently promoted by the Ministry of Justice.

It stated that limiting the duties and powers of prosecutors guaranteed by higher laws such as the Prosecutors' Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act through a presidential decree is legally questionable. In particular, requiring the approval of the Minister of Justice to initiate investigations seriously undermines the political neutrality and independence of the prosecution, making it difficult to accept.

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office announced this through the "Supreme Prosecutors' Office Position on the Reorganization Plan" distributed that morning.

It was reported that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office held a meeting of department heads from 5:00 PM to 6:15 PM the previous day, chaired by Prosecutor General Kim Oh-soo, to discuss the "2021 First Half Prosecution Office Reorganization Plan," gather opinions, and finalize their position.

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office first expressed agreement with the purpose and direction of the reorganization plan aimed at strengthening the prosecution's human rights protection and judicial control functions.

They shared the Ministry of Justice's view on the necessity of expanding the placement of human rights officers, establishing a human rights protection division, and setting up a dedicated department for investigative cooperation.

However, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office pointed out that "the reorganization of the prosecution office must harmonize with higher laws such as the Prosecutors' Office Act and be promoted in a way that does not weaken the nation's capacity to respond to crime."

They added, "Through institutional reforms such as the adjustment of investigative authority, the scope of direct investigations by the prosecution has already been reduced to six major crimes, and now it is most important to stabilize the system so that the public does not experience inconvenience."

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office meticulously outlined the problems with the reorganization plan promoted by the Ministry of Justice.

They pointed out that "limiting the direct investigations of the frontline prosecution office's criminal division by organizational regulations, as in this reorganization plan, may violate the Prosecutors' Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act by restricting the duties and powers of prosecutors and the supervisory and command authority of the head of the institution."

In fact, within the legal community, there have been concerns that the Ministry of Justice's amendment of the "Regulations on the Prosecutors' Office Organization" (a presidential decree), which is a subordinate law to the Criminal Procedure Act or the Prosecutors' Office Act, to limit the powers granted to prosecutors by law, may be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office also argued that "even if the public wishes for the prosecution to directly investigate crimes related to their livelihood, there will be gaps where investigations cannot be promptly initiated, which could contradict the direction of specialization of the criminal division that has been carefully pursued."

Since the current administration took office, the Ministry of Justice has continuously emphasized "strengthening the criminal and trial divisions" and "preferential treatment for prosecutors from the criminal division," but the current reorganization plan significantly reduces the investigative authority of the criminal division.

According to the organizational reform plan, even for the six major crimes remaining with the prosecution after the adjustment of investigative authority between the police and prosecution, only the Anti-Corruption Investigation Division of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office can investigate, and in other prosecution offices or branch offices, only a very limited number of criminal division departments can initiate investigations with the approval of the Prosecutor General or the Minister of Justice.

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office expressed strong concerns about the plan requiring ministerial approval to initiate investigations.

They emphasized, "In particular, the ministerial approval part is difficult to accept due to various problems such as seriously undermining the political neutrality and independence of the prosecution," and "most frontline prosecutors also express concerns."

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office further stated, "Control measures such as requiring the Prosecutor General's approval for direct investigations by the criminal division relate to investigative procedures, so it is more appropriate to regulate them through Supreme Prosecutors' Office regulations or guidelines rather than including them in organizational regulations that define work assignments," adding, "The Supreme Prosecutors' Office is preparing related regulations in this regard."

They added, "Furthermore, to maintain the prosecution's anti-corruption response capabilities, it is deemed absolutely necessary to establish an Anti-Corruption Investigation Division at the Busan District Prosecutors' Office, the second largest city in our country."

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