Chanun Park, Head of Prosecution Reform Advisory Committee, Resigns After Opposing Abolition of Supplementary Investigations

Chanun Park, Advisory Chairman of the Prosecution Reform Promotion Group under the Prime Minister's Office and a professor at Hanyang University School of Law, resigned on March 9 after expressing his opposition to the abolition of the supplementary investigation authority. He argued, "The proposal to completely abolish prosecutors' direct supplementary investigations carries a high risk of pushing our criminal justice procedures into unbearable chaos."

Chanun Park, Advisory Committee Chairman of the Prosecution Reform Promotion Team

Chairman Park made these remarks in a Facebook post titled "Abolishing All Direct Supplementary Investigations—Can We Really Handle It?" on the same day. The government has begun discussions on revising the Criminal Procedure Act, focusing on whether to retain the supplementary investigation authority, which is one of the core issues of prosecution reform.

Chairman Park said, "According to recent statistics, about 800,000 cases are transferred annually from the police to the prosecution," adding, "Prosecutors check for missing evidence, examine inconsistencies in statements, and determine whether prosecution is possible by considering if charges can be sustained in court. During this process, most cases, to varying degrees, have gone through supplementary investigations by prosecutors." He asserted that the supplementary investigation authority is necessary.

He continued, "While prosecutors can request supplementary investigations from the police, there are cases where this is not feasible depending on the incident," and added, "If the police decide not to refer a case and, after the victim objects, the case is transferred to the prosecution, does it make sense to close the case only by reviewing police records without hearing the victim’s plea? ... Should prosecutors request supplementary investigations from the very police officers who initially decided against referral? That is not acceptable." He stressed, "If (supplementary investigations) are prohibited, the only options left are flawed prosecutions or passive non-prosecutions. It will be difficult for the public to accept this."

However, Chairman Park clarified, "Recognizing direct supplementary investigations does not mean returning to the days when the prosecution was a comprehensive investigative body, nor does it mean restoring prosecutors’ broad investigative powers," and explained, "I am simply arguing that the body responsible for deciding whether to prosecute and maintaining indictments in court should have the minimum authority necessary to verify facts and fulfill its responsibilities."

Regarding the excessive criticism from the ruling party against prosecutors and others asserting the need for supplementary investigations, he commented, "We need to reflect on the level of discourse," and stated, "Flatly excluding prosecutors' statements by insisting that 'there is no need to listen' is not criticism, but stigmatization. That is not the language of reform, but the language of demonization."

Chairman Park repeatedly appealed, "Institutional design must be based on reason, weighing whether a system is viable in reality, not on emotion," adding, "Reform may begin with anger, but it must be completed on the foundation of calm judgment and responsible design."

In a statement delivered to the media, he also said, "I take seriously the reality that emotional approaches are prevailing over sufficient deliberation and balanced debate," and expressed his reasons for resignation by stating, "If the criminal justice system undergoes rapid restructuring in the name of 'reform' without detailed review and rational discussion, the burden and risks will ultimately be borne by the public."

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