300 Days Since Launch, the Corruption Investigation Office Reveals 'Lack of Investigation Experience' Limitations... Remains a 'System Improvement' Task

Investigation into Foreign Passports Delayed as Focus Shifts to Yoon Seok-yeol, 'Yoon Prosecutor's Office' Stigma Emerges
Amend the Corruption Investigation Office Act to Clearly Distribute Powers with the Prosecution

On the afternoon of January 21, at the government Gwacheon complex, Nam Gi-myeong, head of the Preparatory Group for the establishment of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), Choo Mi-ae, Minister of Justice, Yoon Ho-jung, Chairman of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, and Kim Jin-wook, Director of the CIO, are unveiling the signboard at the inauguration ceremony of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials. Photo by Moon Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The High-ranking Officials’ Crime Investigation Agency (HCIA) marked its 300th day since its launch on the 16th.

The establishment of the HCIA, which can be seen as a symbol of the Moon Jae-in administration’s prosecution reform, was significant in itself as it broke the prosecution’s exclusive right to indict that had been maintained for 72 years since the enactment of the Prosecutors’ Office Act in 1949.

However, the HCIA, which was expected to take the lead in eradicating corruption by investigating the “living power,” has in fact disappointed the public by revealing several limitations during the investigation process.

Various immature aspects stemming from a “lack of investigative experience” and conflicts with the prosecution caused public anxiety, and focusing investigative power on opposition party presidential candidates sparked controversy over political neutrality. The urgent tasks that have emerged include supplementing insufficient investigative personnel, securing an independent office building, and above all, clearly dividing authority with the prosecution through amendments to the HCIA Act.

Since its establishment, the HCIA has assigned case numbers and officially launched investigations into a total of 12 cases. However, except for the “Case No. 1,” the suspicion of “special recruitment of dismissed teachers” involving Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education Superintendent Cho Hee-yeon, the remaining cases have yet to be concluded. In the Cho Superintendent case, the prosecution, which received the HCIA’s request for indictment, has not yet filed charges.

Among the remaining 11 cases, four are related to Yoon Seok-youl, the presidential candidate of the People Power Party. The HCIA is investigating ▲ Prosecutor Lee Gyu-won’s alleged fabrication of a false interview report with Yoon Joong-chun ▲ former Vice Minister Kim Hak-ui’s illegal travel ban obstruction case ▲ and suspicions of National Intelligence Service Director Park Ji-won’s tip-off manipulation, but in reality, most of the investigative efforts are concentrated on the “accusation tip-off” suspicions involving candidate Yoon. This is why criticisms such as “HCIA is actually Yoon’s investigation agency” have emerged.

The HCIA’s immature image has been found in various places, from the “imperial escort” controversy involving Lee Sung-yoon, then head of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, who was accused of exerting pressure on the Kim Hak-ui illegal travel ban investigation, to the recent “subcontracted inspection” controversy regarding the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Inspection Department.

In particular, the HCIA’s forced request for an arrest warrant against former Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Investigation and Policy Officer Son Jun-sung, whose arrest warrant was dismissed, raises doubts about the HCIA’s identity, which has emphasized “human rights-friendly investigations.”

In the legal community, there are criticisms that the HCIA has inherent limitations because all the top officials leading the HCIA investigations, including Chief Kim Jin-wook, Deputy Director Yeo Woon-guk, and Chief Prosecutor Choi Seok-gyu, are former judges, and there are no prosecutors with rich special investigation experience among the HCIA prosecutors.

Since the HCIA was created to check the prosecution and investigate prosecutors, it inevitably excluded former prosecutors, but it is somewhat natural that an investigative agency without investigation experts experiences trial and error during investigations.

Former Seoul Bar Association President Kim Han-gyu pointed out, “Considering the purpose of introducing the HCIA, such as checking prosecutorial power, investigating the living power, and political neutrality, it is hard to understand why the first case was the investigation of Superintendent Cho’s case or the request for an arrest warrant against former Officer Son,” adding, “Given the limited investigative personnel compared to the prosecution, the HCIA must prioritize and focus.”

Meanwhile, conflicts with the prosecution over issues such as “referral with reserved prosecution rights” and “non-prosecution decision authority” need to be resolved through amendments to the HCIA Act. Tasks such as supplementing insufficient investigative personnel and securing an independent office building remain.

Above all, how the HCIA will wrap up the ongoing investigations related to candidate Yoon, including the “accusation tip-off” suspicions, before the presidential election is expected to be a decisive turning point in evaluating the HCIA.

An HCIA official said, “It is true that we have not met the great expectations and interest of the public since our launch,” adding, “As we have done so far, we will continue to firmly maintain political independence and neutrality without wavering and do our best to become an investigative agency trusted by the public.”

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