"Complete Inspection Ban, A World Where Only Criminals Thrive... 'Park Jong-cheol Torture Death' Investigation Impossible"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] Jeong Woong-seok, president of the Korean Criminal Procedure Law Association (professor at Seokyeong University), sharply criticized the 'Complete Removal of Prosecutorial Investigation Rights (Geomsu Wanbak)' bill point by point, saying, "Is it acceptable for the national criminal justice system to be this sloppy? It’s a world where only criminals can thrive."

According to the legal community on the 17th, Professor Jeong posted this statement on his social networking service (SNS).

He first took issue with the amendment to Article 4, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1 of the current Prosecutors’ Office Act. According to the provision, prosecutors can directly investigate six major crimes including corruption, economic crimes, public officials, election crimes, defense industry crimes, and large-scale disasters, as well as crimes committed by police officers, crimes related to cases transferred by the police, and crimes directly related to those cases.

However, the amendment deletes all of these and explicitly excludes "investigation" from the scope of prosecutors’ duties. Instead, a new provision was added allowing prosecutors to directly investigate 'crimes related to the duties' of police officers and officials belonging to the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO).

Regarding this, Professor Jeong viewed the abolition of prosecutors’ 'direct warrant application rights' as making substantive investigations difficult. He said, "The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act states that prosecutors can only request a warrant from a judge if a judicial police officer applies for it," adding, "Since the lead in compulsory investigations lies with the police, how can prosecutors investigate the police at the early stages of investigation? Probably, there will only be disputes between prosecutors and police over the recognition of 'police duty-related crimes.'"

He also pointed out that the amendment specifying "investigation is the duty of judicial police officers" could have side effects. According to the amendment, prosecutors investigating police officers suspected of crimes would be considered 'judicial police officers.' On this, Professor Jeong questioned, "Then, to whom would that prosecutor apply for a warrant?"

He also noted the change in Article 222 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which previously allowed prosecutors to order judicial police officers to conduct autopsies, to "may request." Article 198-2, which deals with prosecutors’ duties in cases of illegal detention or confinement, was also changed from "must order release or transfer the case to the prosecution" to "may request release." By specifying a request rather than an order, it allows the police to potentially ignore it.

Professor Jeong evaluated, "It now seems impossible to uncover police brutality like the 1987 torture death of the late Park Jong-cheol." During the Park Jong-cheol torture death case, which was also depicted in the film '1987,' the prosecution exercised authority over the autopsy to prevent police from fabricating and concealing the case.

Article 210 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires police to report to the chief prosecutor or branch chief when investigating beyond their jurisdiction, was changed from a report to a notification. Since this effectively removes a control mechanism, he warned that problems such as 'planned investigations' could arise.

Professor Jeong explained that the amendment selectively replaced or deleted the term 'prosecution' in the legal text with 'judicial police officers,' inevitably creating gaps in the criminal justice system that has been in place for over 70 years. He anticipated problems starting from the pre-arraignment detention hearing (warrant review). Currently, prosecutors and defense attorneys can attend the warrant review to present their opinions, but the amendment adds judicial police officers to this process.

He said, "Judicial police officers will inevitably have to engage in factual and legal disputes with the opposing side’s lawyers," adding, "In cases of corruption and economic crimes, the opposing side will hire top law firms’ lawyers, so it is questionable whether they can handle this. It looks like criminals and law firms will benefit."

The provision allowing prosecutors to request the court to examine witnesses before the first trial date when indicting a suspect now includes a proviso stating "upon application by judicial police officers." Professor Jeong called this a 'comedy,' strongly criticizing it as "legislation that entrusts even the function of maintaining prosecution to the police, which is unprecedented anywhere in the world."

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