Emergency Meeting of the Seoul Metropolitan Prosecutors' Office Secretariat Directors: "'Geomsu Wanbak' Violates Investigators' Freedom of Career Choice"

Seoul Seocho-dong Supreme Prosecutors' Office.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] Last week, the directors of prosecution offices expressed a consensus that the amendment bills to the Prosecutors' Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, proposed by the Democratic Party of Korea and known as the so-called 'Complete Prosecution Investigation Reform Act (Geomsu Wanbak Law),' constitute a "serious infringement on the freedom of career choice for prosecution investigators."

They also argued that it is unfair not to grant investigative authority to prosecution investigators within the scope of direct investigations allowed for prosecutors under the amended law, and that this violates the principle of fairness compared to other investigative agencies such as the police and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO).

Deletion of Provisions on Judicial Police Officer Duties for Investigators... Paralysis of Prosecution Functions and Work Confusion

According to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on the 18th, the directors of prosecution offices in the metropolitan area held an 'Emergency Meeting of Metropolitan Prosecution Office Directors' at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office the previous afternoon. They discussed the anticipated problems of the bill abolishing prosecution investigative functions and its future impact on prosecution investigators, reaching the above consensus.

They first pointed out, "The 'Geomsu Wanbak Law,' which abolishes the prosecution's investigative functions, completely deletes the provisions related to prosecution investigators' duties as judicial police officers under Article 245-9 of the Criminal Procedure Act and investigative affairs provisions under Articles 46 and 47 of the Prosecutors' Office Act. As a result, prosecution investigators can no longer perform not only investigative duties as judicial police officers but also prosecution's inherent duties such as execution of sentences and recovery of criminal proceeds."

They continued, "By indiscriminately deleting the status of judicial police officers without considering the characteristics of prosecution affairs, it has become impossible to perform prosecution's inherent duties such as apprehending fugitives with unexecuted sentences and enforcing detention in labor camps for unpaid fines." They added, "This raises concerns about paralysis of prosecution functions and work confusion, and the related specialized expertise and know-how will be lost, ultimately causing harm solely to the public."

Article 245-9 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Prosecutors' Office Staff) regulates prosecution office staff involved in investigative work, stating that "staff performing judicial police officer duties shall investigate under the direction of a prosecutor" (Paragraph 1), or "staff performing judicial police officer duties shall assist investigations conducted by prosecutors or other prosecution office staff performing judicial police officer duties" (Paragraph 2). This provision is completely deleted in the partial amendment bill to the Criminal Procedure Act proposed by the Democratic Party on the 15th.

Article 46 of the Prosecutors' Office Act (Duties of Prosecutorial Investigation Officers, etc.) defines the duties of prosecutorial investigation officers, prosecutorial clerks, narcotics investigation clerks, assistant prosecutorial clerks, narcotics assistant clerks, prosecutorial secretaries, and narcotics investigation secretaries. In the partial amendment bill proposed by the Democratic Party, the previous content stating "engaged in investigative affairs under the prosecutor's orders" was changed to "assist prosecutors in the filing and maintenance of public prosecutions" (Article 46, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1).

Additionally, the provision (Paragraph 2) stating that prosecutorial investigation officers, investigative clerks, and narcotics investigative clerks assist prosecutors in criminal investigations as judicial police officers under the direction of prosecutors pursuant to Article 245-9 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act was completely deleted.

Article 47 of the Prosecutors' Office Act (Performance of Duties as Judicial Police Officers) also allowed prosecutorial clerks, narcotics investigation clerks, assistant clerks, narcotics assistant clerks, and prosecutorial secretaries to perform judicial police officer duties related to cases received by their affiliated prosecution offices or branch offices, but this provision was deleted in the amended bill.

Infringement on Prosecution Investigators' Freedom of Career Choice

The directors of metropolitan prosecution offices stated, "The amended law is unfair as it involves significant changes in status such as depriving prosecution investigators of their status as judicial police officers without any procedures such as opinion gathering." They argued, "Especially considering that the status as judicial police officers is the most important factor when choosing a profession, this seriously infringes on the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of career choice."

They added, "It is no different from suddenly changing public officials who joined expecting to perform police duties into administrative officials due to legal amendments," emphasizing, "During the legislative discussion process, it is essential to simultaneously discuss manpower and organizational composition bills that consider the fact that the majority of prosecution investigators are engaged in investigative duties."

Unfair Not to Grant Investigative Authority to Prosecution Investigators Even Within Prosecutors' Direct Investigation Scope... Also Unfair Compared to Police and CIO

They also pointed out, "Article 4 of the amended Prosecutors' Office Act allows prosecutors to directly investigate crimes committed by police officers and CIO officials, but in reality, it is equivalent to preventing prosecutors from exercising their direct investigative authority without granting investigative authority to prosecution investigators who support prosecutors' direct investigations, especially in cases of official corruption requiring specialized investigative personnel."

They added, "Furthermore, compared to the police and CIO, which grant investigative authority to their staff, there is a fairness issue, and the amendment undermines the prosecutors' direct investigative function, resulting in insufficient practical checks and balances among investigative agencies."

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