[Full Text] Statement from the National Assembly of Prosecutors
by Choi Sukjin
Published 20 Apr.2022 09:09(KST)
Updated 20 Apr.2022 09:32(KST)
On the 20th, prosecutors at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, are announcing the results of the nationwide prosecutors' meeting held to respond to the legislation on 'Geomsu Wanbak' (complete removal of prosecutorial investigation rights). Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@
[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A nationwide meeting of ordinary prosecutors was held from 7 p.m. on the 19th until the early morning of the 20th regarding the Democratic Party's push for the legislation of 'Geomsu Wanbak (Complete Removal of Prosecutors' Investigation Rights)'.
From 9 a.m. on the 20th, a briefing on the results of the nationwide ordinary prosecutors' meeting was held at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office press room in Seocho-dong, Seoul.
Below is the full statement announced by the representatives of the nationwide ordinary prosecutors.
Statement
We, the 207 representatives of ordinary prosecutors nationwide, as practitioners responsible for frontline investigations, have discussed the issues of the recently proposed so-called ‘Geomsu Wanbak’ bill and would like to present the following opinions.
○ We, the ordinary prosecutors, are fully aware of the public’s criticism of the prosecution. We will strive to dispel such concerns starting from ourselves and to restore the trust of the people.
○ The reason we ordinary prosecutors have discussed the ‘Geomsu Wanbak’ bill is due to our urgent concern that it may become increasingly difficult to protect the public from most everyday crimes such as sexual violence, violent crimes, voice phishing crimes, large-scale economic crimes, and other offenses that disrupt social order.
○ Although the Constitution recognizes the prosecutor’s investigative authority and grants prosecutors the direct right to request warrants for compulsory investigations, the ‘Geomsu Wanbak’ bill arbitrarily interprets the Constitution to strip prosecutors of both investigative authority and the direct right to request warrants, while even recognizing the police’s direct warrant request rights, which raises significant constitutional concerns.
○ The ‘Geomsu Wanbak’ bill prevents prosecutors from even verifying basic facts, thereby creating unjust victims, and eliminates procedures that would allow prosecutors to review objections raised by those wishing to have the prosecutor’s judgment. It also removes opportunities to correct errors that may occur during detention and to rectify mistakes in search and seizure processes, which involve significant human rights concerns.
○ The ‘Geomsu Wanbak’ bill blinds and binds prosecutors, creating a ‘country where crimes are rampant but criminals do not exist,’ blocking powerless citizens from seeking remedies themselves, ultimately granting impunity to criminals and only increasing suffering for victims, thus degenerating into a ‘crime neglect law.’
○ There are claims that the ‘Geomsu Wanbak’ bill represents a global standard and that advanced countries separate prosecution and investigation, but this is not true. Most advanced democratic countries have prosecution systems as control mechanisms over the police and recognize prosecutors’ investigative functions to respond to increasingly sophisticated and intelligent crimes.
○ Even those in the legal community, academia, and civic groups who have been critical of the prosecution oppose the ‘Geomsu Wanbak’ bill unanimously due to concerns about judicial system chaos and weakened ability to respond to corruption crimes. Nonetheless, it is regrettable and worrisome that these voices are being ignored and the bill is being pushed through without any alternatives. We, the ordinary prosecutors, hope that reform will be achieved through in-depth discussions and the collection of opinions from various sectors to gain public consensus.
○ Furthermore, we ordinary prosecutors will continue our own efforts to ensure fairness and neutrality in investigations. We will take the lead in introducing various systems that guarantee the prosecution’s fairness and neutrality, such as external control mechanisms allowing public participation in major crime investigations and internal checks like the ‘Ordinary Prosecutors’ Representatives Meeting,’ where representatives regularly discuss matters.
○ We will do our best in the prosecution’s fundamental duties and strive to become a prosecution that serves the people.
