[Seocho-dong Legal Talk] ‘Kind Prosecutor’... The Spectacle Created by the Complete Prosecution Reform

People Power Party lawmakers protested the vote on the amendment to the Prosecutors' Office Act during the National Assembly plenary session on the afternoon of the 30th of last month. [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] Due to the so-called ‘Prosecutorial Reform’ pushed through by the Democratic Party of Korea, the entire month of April was like walking on thin ice for all prosecution offices nationwide. Following the first nationwide meeting of ordinary prosecutors’ representatives in 19 years, unprecedented consecutive meetings of chief prosecutors’ representatives and investigators’ representatives were held. Even the heads of high prosecutors’ offices and chief prosecutors did not hesitate to appear on TV and radio broadcasts and publish columns in daily newspapers, striving to highlight the unfairness of the Prosecutorial Reform bill, so the general atmosphere can be easily imagined.

Kim Oh-soo, the Prosecutor General, who visited the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office press room only once at the start of his term, voluntarily visited the press room twice this month alone. The deputy chief prosecutors (high prosecutors) and chiefs (chief prosecutors), as well as department heads (chief prosecutors), came down to the press room almost daily to meticulously criticize the problems of the Prosecutorial Reform bill. Eventually, an unprecedented situation occurred where both the Prosecutor General and all high prosecutors nationwide submitted their resignations. This scene reflects how dangerously disruptive the Prosecutorial Reform bill was to the foundation of South Korea’s criminal justice system, which had been maintained for 70 years, and it will be recorded as a page in history.

On the other hand, one might wonder if the prosecution has ever been this friendly to the media before. Prosecutors who usually did not answer calls or often passed them on responded kindly and even provided detailed explanations about the bill. Hearing from fellow reporters that Prosecutor A, known for not answering calls, and Prosecutor B, notorious for being curt, talked on the phone for about ten minutes each, gave a strange feeling.

Reporters in the provinces also experienced ‘friendly prosecutors.’ Typically, frontline prosecution offices do not have separate press rooms and structurally block reporters’ access. Without a briefing on investigation results, entry into prosecution offices is not allowed. As a result, exchanges between prosecutors and reporters are almost nonexistent, and only the chief prosecutors or deputy chiefs of provincial offices meet reporters briefly at initial press conferences. However, the Prosecutorial Reform situation turned the prosecution 180 degrees. The prosecution took the initiative to explain, proposed holding press conferences, and answered calls with friendly explanations.

Some criticize this as collective insubordination by the prosecution, conducting a ‘public opinion war.’ They argue that since a bill reducing prosecutorial powers was introduced, the prosecution actively highlighted only the problems of the Prosecutorial Reform bill. On the other hand, some defend the prosecutors, saying there must be valid reasons for them to unprecedentedly question the legislative process, which is the National Assembly’s prerogative. Regardless of interpretation, this unprecedented spectacle in prosecutorial history is undeniable. In any case, the Prosecutorial Reform issue will be settled on the 3rd. The bill will likely pass in a direction that drastically reduces prosecutors’ direct investigation and supplementary investigation scopes, stripping away much of their investigative authority.

Once the Prosecutorial Reform bill passes, the criminal justice system will undoubtedly take a completely different form from before. Case processing times will increase, and crimes may become rampant due to gaps in investigative agencies’ work. Although the bill was made by the National Assembly, investigative agencies such as the prosecution and police, responsible for practical work, will bear public criticism. The government and ruling party, which ignored criticism from the legal community, academia, and the media, should be blamed, but unfortunately, the arrows of criticism are expected to be directed at the innocent prosecution and police.

Neither Prosecutors A and B, who will return to being unfriendly to the media, nor the police officers who will struggle more with cases after the Prosecutorial Reform bill is implemented, are at fault. The blame lies with the ruling party that overturned South Korea’s 70-year-old criminal justice system in just three weeks without deliberation.

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