Prosecutors: "'Geomsuwanbak' Amendment Also a Patchwork Bill"... Considering Constitutional Court Jurisdiction Dispute and Injunction

"Prosecutor's Supplementary Investigation Scope Still Limited to 'Police Transferred Cases' and 'Identity' Restrictions"
Supreme Prosecutors' Office Reviews Constitutional Court Jurisdiction Dispute and Injunction Requests
Jung Woong-seok, President of the Criminal Procedure Law Association, "We Are Going Against the Global Trend (OECD Letter)"

Park Sung-jin, Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office (center), is announcing the prosecution's position on the so-called 'Geomsu Wanbak' (Complete Removal of Prosecutorial Investigation Rights) bill, which passed the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office press room in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the morning of the 27th.

[Asia Economy Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist Reporter, Kim Hyung-min Reporter] The Democratic Party of Korea has prepared a revised bill for the plenary session to implement 'Geomsu Wanbak' (Complete Removal of Prosecutorial Investigation Rights), but criticism is emerging from the prosecution, calling it a 'hastily made bill' and a 'patchwork bill.'

The revised bill also reduces the crimes that prosecutors can directly investigate to two categories: corruption and economic crimes, and maintains the major issue of preventing the prosecutor who investigated the case from prosecuting it, which is the same fundamental problem as the original bill, according to the prosecution's perspective.

Additionally, there are criticisms that the revised bill only removed the 'identity' restriction on the scope of supplementary investigations by prosecutors for cases transferred to the police, and that it deleted the complainant from the list of those who can appeal police non-prosecution decisions, which is also problematic.

Issue of Restricting Supplementary Investigation Scope by ‘Identity’ Remains

On the 28th, a prosecution official said, “The revised bill also reduces the crimes that prosecutors can directly investigate to two categories: corruption and economic crimes, and maintains the same fundamental problems as the original bill by preventing the prosecutor who investigated the case from prosecuting it.”

The revised bill changes the prosecutor’s investigation target clause in the amendment to the Prosecutors’ Office Act from ‘corruption crimes, economic crimes among’ to ‘corruption crimes, economic crimes, etc.’ and deletes the clause that limited the scope of supplementary investigations for cases transferred by the police to ‘within the scope of the same criminal facts.’

Regarding this, the prosecution official said, “The revised part is also unacceptable because, concerning the prosecutor’s supplementary investigation rights, only cases transferred by the investigative agency with a prosecution opinion have been reverted to the previous state, but in fact, in terms of the necessity of supplementary investigations, cases where the party has filed an objection, cases where the prosecutor has requested corrective measures, cases transferred related to illegal arrest, detention, or inspection, and other cases where problems have already been raised still remain restricted to ‘within the scope that does not violate identity’.”

He continued, “For example, if a victim suffered damage of 100, but the police reduced the criminal facts to only 30, the prosecutor cannot conduct supplementary investigations on the remaining 70 and can only do so on the 30 acknowledged by the police, which makes no sense,” adding, “I don’t know why it was restricted to the identity scope or if there is any reasonable justification.”

Removal of Complainant’s Right to Appeal is Clearly Unconstitutional... Considering Constitutional Court Jurisdictional Dispute Petition

The official said, “Excluding the complainant from the list of those who can appeal is also problematic,” and “There is no reasonable explanation for excluding the complainant without rational discrimination.”

He added, “The complainant’s right to appeal or request for reconsideration is completely stripped, which is highly likely to be unconstitutional,” and pointed out, “Even in cases of institutional complaints such as those from the Fair Trade Commission or the National Election Commission, it becomes impossible to appeal police non-prosecution decisions, which is a major problem.”

Another prosecution official said, “Both the previous amendment and this revised bill give the impression of a hastily made bill patched together under time pressure without serious consideration of the impact on the public, selectively accepting opposition party opinions reluctantly.”

The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office is considering filing a jurisdictional dispute petition with the Constitutional Court and requesting a provisional suspension of effect if the law passes the National Assembly.

The People Power Party is preparing to file a jurisdictional dispute petition citing infringement of lawmakers’ rights to deliberate and vote, but separately, the prosecution believes that prosecutors, the Prosecutor General, or the Minister of Justice also have standing as state institutions specified in the Constitution to file such petitions. There is sufficient constitutional concern regarding infringement of prosecutors’ constitutionally guaranteed warrant request rights, baseless restrictions on investigation rights, and procedural illegality in the legislative process.

Summary of OECD Letter: “Contrary to Global Trends”

The controversy over ‘Geomsu Wanbak’ is spreading domestically and internationally.

Drago Kos, Chair of the Working Group on Bribery (WGB) under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), expressed concern to the Ministry of Justice on the 22nd about legislative moves to amend the Prosecutors’ Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act in Korea, stating, “The compromise should never weaken Korea’s anti-corruption and overseas bribery investigation and prosecution capabilities.”

Jung Woong-seok, President of the Korean Criminal Procedure Law Association (Professor at Seokyeong University Law School), said in a phone interview with this publication, “The gist of the OECD letter is that we are going against global trends.”

He explained, “The global perspective is basically that the police belong to the executive branch responsible for maintaining public order, while the prosecution belongs to the judiciary and conducts investigations. The structure guarantees prosecutorial investigations while judicial police officers support when investigative manpower is insufficient.”

According to the principle of separation of powers, the roles of the police and prosecution, which report to different authorities, are strictly distinguished worldwide, but our Geomsu Wanbak goes against this trend.

According to President Jung, among the 38 OECD member countries, prosecutors in 29 countries including Germany, France, and Japan (excluding Colombia and Costa Rica, which joined in 2020) have both investigation and prosecution rights. The current trend is to further strengthen prosecutorial investigation authority to bring criminals to trial.

On the 19th, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office requested the International Association of Prosecutors (IAP) to review the bill abolishing prosecutorial investigation rights and to issue a statement, and is awaiting a response.

Separately, the IAP will hold official events such as webinars on investigative issues including cybercrime response next month. There is a possibility that opinions from overseas prosecutors regarding our Geomsu Wanbak bill will be expressed at these events.

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