"Separation of Prosecution Investigation and Indictment Was First Advocated by Lenin... An Act of Constitutional Destruction"

Chinese-educated Chief Prosecutor Kim Seung-eon
"Prosecution has deteriorated into a legal supervisory body
Suitable for maintaining and strengthening China's one-party dictatorship
Criminal justice gaps and rule of law blind spots"
"'Isn't it enough if the police do well?'
is a premise denying the principle of separation of powers"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] Kim Seung-eon, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the Western District Prosecutors' Office (48, Judicial Research and Training Institute Class 33), who studied in China, stated in an interview with this publication on the 3rd, "The separation of investigation and prosecution views the prosecution as a legal supervisory body, a concept first advocated by Russian socialist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin (1870?1924)." He added, "The current separation of investigation and prosecution is an act that destroys our constitution."

Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kim studied the Chinese prosecution system at East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai from 2014 to 2015. According to him, although the abolition of the prosecution was discussed after the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, Lenin saw the prosecution as playing an important function and role in building a sound socialist legal supervisory system in the Soviet Union. The prosecution was viewed as 'legal supervision,' which monitors and manages investigations without direct involvement. Prosecution was considered the result of legal supervision over investigations, and thus investigation and prosecution had to be strictly separated. This concept was directly inherited by China, whose constitution explicitly defines the prosecution as a legal supervisory body. China regards 'legal supervision' as a fourth power, distinct from both the administrative and judicial branches. In contrast, liberal democratic systems view prosecution and investigation from a judicial perspective, considering the prosecution as the master of criminal justice. The prosecution must oversee the entire process from investigation to trial. Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kim said, "In this case, the argument for separating investigation and prosecution is impossible, but from the perspective of legal supervision, it is possible. From that viewpoint, (the claims and bills of the Democratic Party of Korea) are understandable."

However, Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kim said, "It is difficult to understand the attempt to separate investigation and prosecution given that our political system differs from China's," adding, "China's prosecution system is suitable for maintaining and strengthening a one-party dictatorship, but it may be a wrong choice as a reform measure for our prosecution system." He warned, "If we recklessly operate the prosecution like China, gaps?big and small?will occur in criminal justice, creating blind spots in the rule of law. Problems will arise regarding what role the prosecution can play during emergencies when the government or legislature oversteps and undermines the rule of law." In such cases, the Chinese prosecution acts only as a legal supervisory body and has no authority to intervene actively. The public security authorities handle everything.

Regarding the question, "Can't we just rely on the police to do well?" Deputy Chief Prosecutor Kim responded, "This notion is based on denying the principle of separation of powers." He explained, "When the rule of law is undermined in the legislative or executive branches, allowing the prosecution to conduct direct investigations and exercise state penal power as part of the judiciary provides a 'judicial check and balance' mechanism." He emphasized, "The separation of investigation and prosecution is a constitutional destruction act that distorts the essence of the current prosecution system into a legal supervisory body." He concluded, "I sincerely hope that future prosecution reforms will move away from the separation of investigation and prosecution and be reconsidered in a direction that maintains and strengthens the capacity to respond to increasingly diverse and complex crimes while efficiently eliminating only the side effects of the prosecution system."

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