Over 2,300 Lawyers Oppose "Separation of Investigation and Prosecution," Citing Weakened Crime Response

Korean Bar Association Survey: 2,383 Members Respond
"Investigation and Prosecution Are Inherently Inseparable"
88% Say Prosecutors Need the Right to Request Supplementary Investigations
"Police Should Not Have Final Authority to Close Investigations"

Lawyers have voiced concerns over President Lee Jaemyung's administration's "prosecution reform," which centers on the separation of investigative and prosecutorial powers. They argue that separating investigation and prosecution would weaken the ability to respond to crime and that, fundamentally, investigation and prosecution are inseparable functions.

On September 25, the Korean Bar Association (President Kim Jungwook) released the results of a "Survey on Government Organization Restructuring Plans" conducted among all its members. A total of 2,383 lawyers participated in the survey.

When asked about their stance on the "organizational separation of investigative and prosecutorial powers," 58% (1,382 lawyers) responded that they opposed it. The main reasons cited by those opposed were "weakened ability to respond to crime" (26.4%), "concerns about abuse of authority by the police or newly established investigative agencies" (26.1%), and "investigation and prosecution are fundamentally inseparable functions" (24.3%). Multiple responses were allowed.

In a separate question on whether prosecutors at the Public Prosecution Office should be granted the right to request supplementary investigations, the vast majority-88.1% (2,101 lawyers)-were in favor. The Korean Bar Association interpreted this as meaning that even among those who support the separation of investigative and prosecutorial powers, many believe that institutional controls are needed rather than granting full authority to close investigations to judicial police officers.

Specifically, 44.6% (1,064 lawyers) responded that both the right to request supplementary investigations and the authority to conduct supplementary investigations should be granted. This was followed by 32.1% (765 lawyers) supporting only the right to request supplementary investigations, and 11.4% (272 lawyers) supporting the granting of both the right to request supplementary investigations and pre-prosecution investigative authority. 37% (837 lawyers) supported unlimited supplementary investigation authority, while 10.2% (244 lawyers) said there was no need to grant either the right to request or the authority for supplementary investigations to prosecutors at the Public Prosecution Office.

Regarding control measures if prosecutors at the Public Prosecution Office are given supplementary investigative authority, 34.6% of respondents said "court oversight is necessary," and 20.9% said oversight by the National Investigation Committee is required. This indicates that many lawyers believe a system to check the abuse of power is necessary, even if prosecutors are granted supplementary investigative authority to support judicial police investigations.

The majority of lawyers also expressed that government policies related to "prosecution reform" should be pursued with sufficient review and preparation time. In response to a question about the necessary preparation period for implementing the law, 52.4% answered "more than two years," followed by "more than one year" (22%), "less than one year" (18%), and "not necessary" (4.4%). The Korean Bar Association interpreted this as reflecting the view and concern of most legal professionals that the one-year grace period set in the Government Organization Act amendment is insufficient.

The Korean Bar Association stated that the results of this survey reflect the experiences of lawyers in the field. Regardless of their views on the organizational separation of investigative and prosecutorial powers, most lawyers agree on the need for checks and balances on judicial police officers from the perspective of practical effectiveness in investigative procedures.

Many individual opinions noted that, despite the existence of the right to request supplementary investigations in the existing criminal justice system, investigation delays were repeatedly caused by so-called "passing the buck" behavior between prosecutors and police. The Korean Bar Association emphasized the need for in-depth discussion to clearly define responsibility and deadlines for supplementary investigations, and the importance of introducing an objective evaluation system within an interconnected structure to encourage investigative agencies to take a more proactive approach.

Among the lawyers who responded to this survey, 61.9% (1,475 lawyers) had passed the bar exam, 37.2% had passed the judicial exam, and the remaining 0.9% had passed other exams such as the military legal officer exam. By age, 39.7% (947 lawyers) were in their 40s, followed by those in their 30s (33.7%), 50s (17.8%), 60s and older (7.6%), and 20s (1.1%). Among the respondents, 83.4% (2,013 lawyers) had no experience working in public offices such as courts or the prosecution, while 9.1% (219 lawyers) were former prosecutors, 5.6% (136 lawyers) were former judges, and 1.8% (43 lawyers) were former police officers or National Intelligence Service personnel.

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