High Prosecutors' Office System Without "Supplementary Investigation Authority"... Vacuum in Orders to Reopen Cases

Concerns That "Reinvestigations" Will Become Ineffective
if Supplementary Investigation Authority Is Abolished
20,000 Appeals Filed Last Year,
Up 21% in Five Years
Is the High Public Prosecutors' Office
Just for Keeping Chief Posts?
...Effectiveness Also in Question

The Democratic Party of Korea decided at its policy caucus on the 5th to abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority while retaining the High Public Prosecutors' Office, confirming a three-tier structure of the National Public Prosecutors' Office, High Public Prosecutors' Office, and District Public Prosecutors' Office. With this decision, concerns are being raised in the legal community that the entire system of appeals and reinvestigations could fall into an institutional dilemma. Critics point out that the order to reopen an investigation, which has been regarded as a core function of the High Public Prosecutors' Office, will be difficult to operate effectively without supplementary investigation authority.

Under the current system, the High Public Prosecutors' Office has reviewed appeals and re-appeals against non-indictment decisions made by prosecutors and, when necessary, has played the role of re-examining cases by issuing orders to reopen investigations. An appeal is a procedure that a complainant or accuser can file with the chief prosecutor of the competent High Public Prosecutors' Office within 20 days from the date of receiving notification of non-indictment, and it has functioned as the final channel for relief for victims.

The volume of appeal cases is not small. According to statistics from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on the 10th, the number of appeal cases received last year was 20,800, an increase of 21.2% from 17,152 cases in 2021, four years earlier. Among these, 1,106 cases led to orders to reopen investigations, and over the past five years, between 1,100 and 2,000 reinvestigations have been carried out annually.

The problem is that this structure will be difficult to maintain if prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority is abolished in the future. If prosecutors cannot directly conduct supplementary investigations, orders from the High Public Prosecutors' Office to reopen investigations are highly likely to amount to no more than a formal request that the police or the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency take up the case again. In effect, the practical means of enforcing orders to reopen investigations would disappear.

A sitting deputy chief prosecutor said, "If supplementary investigation authority is abolished, the prosecution will no longer be able to conduct reinvestigations itself, so cases will be sent back down to the police. Both prosecutors and police are reluctant to review a case that has already been processed once, and this will further worsen delays in handling cases." A lawyer who previously served as a prosecutor stated, "Non-indictment decisions have in effect been operated like a three-instance system through appeals and re-appeals," adding, "Procedures that allow victims to voice their grievances are essential from the perspective of protecting human rights."

Some also take a skeptical view of maintaining the High Public Prosecutors' Office in conjunction with the abolition of supplementary investigation authority. They argue that this is merely internal resistance within the organization aimed at preserving six High Public Prosecutors' Office chief positions in Seoul, Suwon, Busan, Gwangju, Daejeon, and Daegu, as well as the deputy chief prosecutor (prosecutor-general rank) posts, and that no effective alternatives are in sight.

Another lawyer with a prosecutorial background said, "If you look purely at functions, it would be fully possible to replace this by setting up an appeals-only department within District Public Prosecutors' Offices," and added, "The courts, too, simply divide instances within a single court system and do not go so far as to separate government offices." He went on to say, "Having a separate office called the High Public Prosecutors' Office is closer to a symbolic device to confer a sense of weight than to an institutional necessity."

The debate over supplementary investigation authority also affects the system for investigating detained suspects. Under the Criminal Procedure Act, judicial police officers must bring a detained suspect before a prosecutor within 10 days, and the prosecutor must file an indictment within 10 days from the date the suspect is brought before them. If supplementary investigation authority is restricted, prosecutors must either decide whether to indict based solely on the records forwarded by the police, or request supplementary investigations from the police and then wait for the results.

Meanwhile, the government plans to announce revised bills on the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Act and the Public Prosecutors' Office Act this week, reflecting the content discussed at the Democratic Party's caucus.

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