[In-Depth Review of Complete Prosecution Reform⑧] Muddy Local Elections Filled with Complaints and Accusations... Police Bear Full Burden, Raising Concerns of Negligence

Election Crimes, Prosecution and Police Complementary Investigations → Revised to Police Exclusive from December
Legal Community Calls for Discussion on Removing 6-Month Short Statute of Limitations for Election Crimes

On the 30th, two days before the 8th nationwide local elections, a D-2 sign is displayed on the information board of the Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kim Hyun-min kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] With the 8th nationwide local elections just one day away, concerns are rising over a potential ‘investigation gap’ in election crimes caused by the enactment of the “Prosecution Reform Law.” Although the revised Prosecutors’ Office Act will not significantly affect this local election, from December onward, only the police will be able to investigate election crimes, which were previously handled by both the prosecution and the police, raising the possibility of gaps in investigations.

On the 31st, legal circles both inside and outside the field predicted that if the structure is reorganized so that the police solely handle election crimes?previously investigated through a complementary relationship between the prosecution and police?there will be increased opportunities for election offenders to evade investigations, leading to a more chaotic election.

Election cases involve many complex issues such as frequent amendments to election laws, changes in precedents, and evidentiary challenges, making it a specialized field that requires advanced legal expertise and accumulated know-how through experience in maintaining prosecutions, according to consensus in the legal community. In particular, under the revised Prosecutors’ Office Act, the police will be fully responsible for all election-related cases, including those reported by the Election Commission, cases involving parties directly, requests for supplementary investigations, and requests for reinvestigation, which have traditionally been directly investigated by the prosecution. This will drastically increase the workload and raise concerns about inadequate investigations.

Due to the nature of election crimes, insider whistleblowing tends to concentrate near the expiration of the statute of limitations. If the prosecution does not directly investigate new cases close to the expiration date, it will be practically impossible to resolve all cases within the deadline.

According to data obtained by Asia Economy, during the 21st National Assembly elections, a total of 193 election offenders were transferred for investigation within one month starting from September 15, 2020?one month before the statute of limitations expired on October 15, 2020. There were also 169 cases registered with the prosecution one month before the statute of limitations expired. If the police take over all direct investigations of election cases from December, the workload will be overwhelming, preventing proper investigations and significantly impacting the maintenance of prosecutions.

One attorney stated, “It is clear that the police have accumulated know-how in investigating election crimes and their investigative capabilities are not inferior to those of the prosecution. The problem is that it is difficult for the police alone to handle election crimes, which have a six-month time constraint. Likewise, if the prosecution were to investigate alone without the police, it would be impossible to complete investigations within the statute of limitations.”

Within legal circles, there are calls for discussions to abolish the short statute of limitations for election crimes. South Korea established a six-month statute of limitations when enacting the Public Official Election Act and the Election Fraud Prevention Act in 1994. Since then, debates over extending or shortening the statute of limitations have continued, but no amendments have been made, and the current statute of limitations remains in place.

In Japan, there are no separate provisions regarding the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for election crimes is applied the same as for general criminal offenses. Under Japan’s Public Official Election Act, most election crimes carry penalties of imprisonment or confinement for up to five years or fines, so a three-year statute of limitations applies. However, offenses such as mass bribery, inducement of understanding, and illegal use of newspapers or magazines have a five-year statute of limitations.

The United States and Germany also do not have short statutes of limitations for election crimes. In the U.S., unless otherwise specified by law, a five-year statute of limitations applies to all crimes, including election crimes. Germany does not have separate statute of limitations provisions for election crimes and applies general statute of limitations rules.

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