Inspection Completion Law to Be Finalized Tomorrow... How Will Prosecution Investigations Change?

Multiple Election Crime Reports Filed with the Election Commission... Police Investigations Cannot Be Challenged
Prosecutors Can Only Supplement Investigations for 'Same Crimes' in Police 'No Charges' Cases

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

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] With the amendment to the Prosecutors' Office Act passing the National Assembly plenary session, if the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act also passes the plenary session on the 3rd, the so-called ‘Complete Prosecution Investigation Removal Act’ (Geomsu Wanbak Act) will be finalized. Once the Geomsu Wanbak Act is completed, the prosecution will only be able to investigate ‘the same crime’ in cases transferred upon the prosecution’s request where police abuse of investigative authority, such as human rights violations, is suspected, making the prosecution’s ‘cross-check’ practically impossible.

On the 2nd, inside and outside the legal community expressed concerns that if the Geomsu Wanbak Act proposed by the Democratic Party is finalized, there will be no way to uncover additional crimes that the police failed to identify during the investigation process, potentially allowing crimes to be concealed.

In particular, even if one wants to challenge the police investigation and seek the prosecution’s judgment, ‘complainants’ cannot file objections, making it highly likely that the prosecution will be unable to intervene in the police investigation results. In election crimes, where many cases are reported by the National Election Commission, even if the police decide not to prosecute after investigation under the amended Prosecutors' Office Act, the Election Commission will no longer be able to file objections.

Furthermore, in cases involving public interest reports, internal whistleblowing, or child abuse cases with many complaints, even if the crime is not clearly established at the police stage and the case is closed, complainants cannot file objections, leaving the prosecution with no means to intervene.

The opportunity to raise issues during the police investigation process and correct investigation results has also diminished. According to the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act submitted to the plenary session, the scope of the prosecutor’s investigation is limited to parts that do not violate the identity of the case transferred by the police. Additionally, a new provision prohibits unreasonable investigations of ‘separate cases’ without reasonable grounds for the purpose of clarifying criminal charges in ongoing investigations, and forbids forcing confessions or statements related to unrelated cases using evidence or materials obtained from other investigations, thereby eliminating clues to expand investigations.

Legal circles point out that the amendment prohibits investigations into any crimes other than those identical to the police-transferred cases as ‘separate investigations,’ limiting the scope of supplementary investigations by the prosecution and making it impossible to investigate additional damages.

Prosecutor A, working in the metropolitan area, said, "If the restriction on identity is applied to the prosecution’s supplementary investigation, comprehensive investigations into transferred cases will become practically impossible. There will be no way to identify potential crimes by the police, and especially for cases transferred upon request, even if violations of laws are found, investigations into their causes will be impossible."

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