[Reporter’s Notebook] The Authority to Order Supplementary Investigations and the Prosecution’s True Intentions

The Essence Is "Who Ends It"
Investigation and Closure Must Be Separated

"If supplementary investigation rights are abolished, prosecutors will honestly have less work and an easier job. But if cases fall apart in court and defendants are acquitted, who do you think will bear the consequences?"

This is what a deputy chief prosecutor recently told me. With the abolition of the prosecution office just around the corner, the reason prosecutors are desperately holding on to "supplementary investigation rights" is clear. Prosecutors are responsible for proving cases in court, and if they cannot fill the missing pieces in the investigation file themselves, maintaining the indictment could inevitably lead to "acquittal by default." As the name suggests, this authority emphasizes "supplementation" rather than "investigation."

These days, the prosecution's actions are unusual. They are highlighting exemplary cases of supplementary investigations, which they used to overlook. At the end of every press release, they now include a phrase stating, "We will continue to actively conduct supplementary investigations to prevent harm to the public." Even if they lay down the "sword" of direct investigation, it is a desperate plea to at least retain their function as a "shield" to fill the gaps left by police investigations.

Justice Minister Jung Sungho has also been repeatedly stressing the necessity of supplementary investigation rights. The concern is that if the police monopolize both the initiation and conclusion of investigations in a situation where criticism of the police's performance persists, there will be a significant judicial vacuum. In fact, the number of appeals against police decisions not to refer cases for prosecution has nearly doubled over the past three years, and the prosecution's requests for supplementary investigations have been increasing every year. This is why concerns over the abolition of supplementary investigation rights continue to be raised in the field.

The legislative direction of the Democratic Party does not closely reflect this reality. The party proposes abolishing the prosecution office while leaving the high prosecutors' office intact but removing the crucial supplementary investigation rights. Their reasoning is that in some political cases, the prosecution has essentially conducted "second investigations" under the pretext of supplementary investigation. But is eliminating the supplementary function from all referred cases the right answer? This approach treats a few controversial political cases and the many livelihood and economic cases—often sent to court with insufficient evidence—as if they are the same.

Who ends an investigation is just as important as who begins it; this is the essence of power. The authority to quietly cover up existing crimes is much stronger than the power to exaggerate them. Under the Democratic Party's bill, the police would have control over both the initiation and conclusion of investigations. If the primary investigative agency mishandles a case, there will be no way to review it. If a victim objects to a decision not to refer a case, they will have no choice but to contest it themselves, investing their own time and money.

The essence is simple: the person who starts an investigation and the person who finishes it should not be the same. There must be someone who can ask, "Why was the investigation stopped?" If the system has loopholes that allow criminals to slip through, it is not the politicians but the public who will pay the price. There should never be cases where complaints from the wrongfully accused are dismissed without a convincing reason. For victims without money or connections, this is nothing short of hell.

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