‘Prosecution Complete Abolition’ Bill Passed by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee… Prosecution Says “Irreparable Damage to the People”

Park Sung-jin, Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office (center), is announcing the position on the amendment bills of the Prosecutors' Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act, which passed the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office press room on the 27th. Photo by Choi Seok-jin

원본보기 아이콘

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Democratic Party of Korea on the 27th passed amendments to the Prosecutors' Office Act and the Criminal Procedure Act at the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, which include elements of the so-called 'Geomsu Wanbak' (complete removal of prosecutorial investigative authority). These amendments reduce the scope of crimes that prosecutors can directly investigate to corruption and economic crimes and prohibit prosecutors who conducted investigations from indicting suspects. Additionally, the scope of investigations related to cases transferred from the police is limited to the 'same criminal facts.'

The prosecution strongly opposed these amendments. They argue that investigation and prosecution, which are prerequisites for deciding whether to indict, are inherently inseparable. If the scope of supplementary investigations by prosecutors is restricted, it will be impossible to investigate the principal offenders or additional victims, making it impossible to uncover the substantive truth.

First, the amendment to the Prosecutors' Office Act, which passed the Legislation and Judiciary Committee that day, revises Article 4 (Duties of Prosecutors) Paragraph 1 by removing four of the six major crimes that prosecutors can currently investigate directly: public official crimes, election crimes, defense business crimes, and large-scale disasters.

In particular, the current law's phrase '~etc., important crimes prescribed by Presidential Decree' was changed to '~among them, important crimes prescribed by Presidential Decree,' effectively blocking any indirect expansion of the scope of prosecutorial investigations through Presidential Decree amendments after President Yoon Seok-yeol's inauguration.

However, regarding election crimes, the amendment includes a transitional provision accepting the Justice Party's proposal, allowing prosecutors to investigate crimes related to the June 1 local elections until the statute of limitations (six months) expires at the end of this year. The other amended provisions will take effect four months after promulgation.

Furthermore, the amendment narrows the scope of crimes prosecutors can directly investigate related to cases transferred by the police from 'crimes directly related' to 'within the same criminal facts.'

Article 4 Paragraph 3 of the Prosecutors' Office Act newly establishes the 'separation of investigation and prosecution' clause, stating, 'A prosecutor may not file an indictment for a crime they have initiated an investigation into.' Initially, the Democratic Party's proposal included provisions preventing the investigating prosecutor from participating in both indictment and prosecution maintenance. However, considering the Court Administration Office's concern that the participation of the investigating prosecutor during criminal trials could invalidate the trial, the expression related to prosecution maintenance was removed.

The Criminal Procedure Act newly adds Article 196 Paragraph 2 (Prosecutor's Investigation), allowing investigations only 'within the scope of the same criminal facts' for cases transferred from the police, and Article 198 Paragraph 4 (Compliance Matters), which prohibits improper investigations of separate cases.

This reflects the most controversial part of the National Assembly's mediation proposal, the prohibition of investigations beyond the unity and identity of crimes, as stated in Paragraph 4's prohibition of separate investigations.

Although some adjustments were made during additional negotiations between ruling and opposition parties the previous day, the Democratic Party's proposal was passed without even being submitted to the agenda adjustment committee.

The prosecution argues that existing laws already contain provisions prohibiting separate investigations, and if the scope of prosecutorial investigations is limited to 'the same criminal facts' as in the amendment, it will be impossible to investigate principal offenders, additional victims, or false accusations in sexual crime cases revealed after the police transfer the case. This will inevitably create serious gaps in relief for crime victims.

On the morning of the same day, Park Seong-jin, Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, expressed his position on the amendment at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office press room. He said, "The Geomsu Wanbak bill passed the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee plenary session in less than 10 minutes around midnight yesterday," adding, "According to the amendment, even if the real culprit or accomplices are identified during the prosecution's investigation, or additional victims are discovered, prosecutors cannot directly investigate or request the police to investigate."

He continued, "Cases like the 'Nth Room' or serial murder, where the prosecution's investigation reveals the full picture and clarifies the truth, will now become impossible," and "This will cause irreparable harm to innocent citizens."

Deputy Prosecutor General Park pointed out, "Restricting prosecutors from investigating and limiting their indictment authority, as in the bill passed by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, clearly has constitutional issues," and criticized, "Passing such a bill by majority vote overnight without sufficient discussion, including gathering opinions from related agencies and holding public hearings, especially on laws directly related to citizens' lives and bodies, is procedurally a serious constitutional violation."

Finally, he earnestly requested, "I sincerely ask the Speaker of the National Assembly to reconsider submitting this bill to the plenary session," and urged, "Members of the National Assembly, as constitutional institutions representing the people, should carefully review not only the bill's unconstitutionality but also procedural violations of the Constitution and the National Assembly Act, and the lack of public consensus, before making a decision."

Opposition to limiting the scope of investigations related to cases transferred from the police to 'within the same criminal facts' comes not only from the prosecution but also from human rights lawyers.

Park Jun-young, a lawyer specializing in retrials, stated on social media that day, "At this moment, we have no choice but to support the prosecution's urgency. I am confident this is the right thing," criticizing, "A rushed legislation?isn't it shameful?" He targeted Democratic Party lawmaker Park Joo-min, who had previously defended a spy fabrication case, asking, "Has the lawmaker changed, or am I the one who hasn't come to my senses?" He also addressed the Justice Party, saying, "I will closely watch what the Justice Party lawmakers' 'justice' really means."

Kim Ye-won, a lawyer at the Center for Disability Rights, argued on social media the previous day with 20 examples that the restriction on identity should be removed. According to her, if sexual abuse is confirmed in a child abuse case or more victims are identified in a fraud case, or if the real culprit of a murder is revealed, investigations will be impossible. Even if child sexual exploitation material is found on a stalking offender's phone, or embezzlement by a union leader is uncovered in an apartment fraud case, investigations cannot proceed. Furthermore, in bribery cases, if bribery or coercion facts are revealed, or if someone is cleared of false accusations, investigations into false accusation crimes cannot be conducted.

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.