"If Police Lose Control, Trial May Be Affected" Judiciary Points Out Issues with 'Geomsuwanbak'

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul.

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] Regarding the 'Complete Removal of Prosecutorial Investigation Rights (Geomsu Wanbak)' law promoted by the Democratic Party of Korea, the judiciary pointed out issues that could affect trials, stating that "supplementary review is necessary."

According to the legal community on the 19th, the Court Administration Office, in its response sent the previous day to the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee titled 'Review Opinions on the Partial Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act,' stated, "If risks such as police over-investigation or inadequate investigation cannot be properly controlled, it will ultimately affect the court trial process, which has the final control over investigation and prosecution," adding, "This will act as a negative factor against the 'realization of justice through trials.'"

The Court Administration Office particularly urged the National Assembly to first consider ▲the pros and cons of the law amendment ▲various opinions and demands from the public and experts ▲fundamental values such as the protection of citizens' basic rights and social security ▲the separation of investigation and prosecution rights and the necessity of democratic control over investigative agencies ▲and overseas legislative examples.

◆A look at some of the problems with the Democratic Party's amendment pointed out by the judiciary...

The Democratic Party's amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act centers on significantly reducing and separating the 'investigation rights' from the prosecution, which has practically overseen criminal justice procedures such as investigation, prosecution, maintenance of public prosecution, and execution of sentences except for trials under the current Criminal Procedure Act, and transferring them to the police.

In this regard, the Court Administration Office emphasized, "If there is inadequate or passive investigation by judicial police officers, prosecutors should be able to appropriately intervene through requests for supplementary investigation."

The Court Administration Office also expressed concerns about the amendment clause allowing police officers not to release suspects even upon prosecutors' requests if there is a 'justifiable reason,' stating, "There is a concern that the prosecutor's human rights protection function against illegal arrest or detention may not be properly performed."

Regarding the clause that allows prosecutors to request supplementary investigations only when complainants or others file objections to the police's decision not to prosecute, it explained, "Even if the police investigation was passive, it is quite conceivable that complainants or others may lack legal knowledge or circumstances to file objections," adding, "It is desirable to expand the scope of non-prosecution cases where supplementary investigations can be requested."

It pointed out that it is necessary to review whether 'investigation' should be removed from the mutual cooperation targets between prosecutors and police officers and whether the legal basis for delegation should also be deleted. This is because, even if direct investigation authority is abolished, prosecutors can request supplementary investigations, and activities related to prosecution and maintenance of public prosecution are deeply connected to investigations.

Regarding the supplementary provision setting the enforcement date of the amendment as "the day after three months from promulgation," the Court Administration Office added, "As this is a system causing significant changes in criminal law, considerable changes and preparatory work regarding the organization and human and material conditions of the prosecution and police are expected," and "It is desirable to prepare for the enforcement of the amendment with a grace period of at least six months to one year."

Meanwhile, Kim Hyungdu, Deputy Director of the Court Administration Office, appeared before the Legislation and Judiciary Committee the previous day and presented the opinion that "it is necessary to gather opinions from various sectors and carefully review the new law," engaging in a heated debate with the Democratic Party side.

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