Prosecution Frames Post-Referral Crimes as 'Supplementary Investigations' to Downplay Police Efforts

Prosecution Continues to Undermine Police to Defend Supplementary Investigation Authority
No Supplementary Requests Made to Police, Proactive and Additional Investigations Conducted Independently
"Distorted to Make It Seem as If Police Investigation

The prosecution announced that it has indicted a man in his 60s on charges including retaliatory threats after he repeatedly caused trouble for a restaurant owner. However, there are criticisms that the announcement was structured to frame additional offenses committed after the case was handed over by the police as “results of supplemental investigations addressing insufficient police work.”

On March 24, the Criminal Division 1 of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office (Chief Prosecutor Hwang Suyeon) stated that it had indicted a man in his 60s, identified as Mr. A, on charges of violating the Stalking Punishment Act and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes. The prosecution emphasized, “Through a supplemental investigation into the simple obstruction of business case referred by the police, we identified additional crimes against the same victim, including retaliatory threats and stalking.”

Prosecutors. Yonhap News

According to coverage by The Asia Business Daily, the case began in September of last year. The victim, who operated a restaurant in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, reported that Mr. A caused a disturbance while intoxicated. There were a total of five related reports at that time, filed by different individuals — the owner, customers, and even a passerby who tried to intervene. The police booked Mr. A on charges of obstruction of business.

After the police investigation began, Mr. A reportedly returned to the restaurant and argued with the victim, threatening to set the restaurant on fire if the report was not withdrawn. Although the police confirmed this incident, they forwarded the case as a single offense, considering legal precedents which state that a one-time insult or temporary outburst of anger does not constitute criminal intimidation. All other complainants besides the restaurant owner expressed no desire for punishment, so those cases were closed as “no right of prosecution.”

The primary charges that led to Mr. A’s detention and indictment mostly “occurred” after the case was referred to the prosecution. After the case was handed over, Mr. A once again approached the victim, hurled insults, issued threats, and even committed assault. Early this month, the prosecution detained Mr. A on charges of retaliatory threats and violation of the Stalking Punishment Act. Then, on March 19, the police additionally referred a case involving Mr. A’s aggravated assault against the same victim, which the prosecution merged, ultimately leading to his indictment in custody.

It has been found that the prosecution did not request any supplemental investigation from the police regarding the new charges. Since these incidents occurred separately after the case was referred, there was no issue of supplementing the police investigation. The only action last December was to request police measures for the victim’s safety. At that time, even though the victim expressed that safety measures were unnecessary, the police proceeded with protective measures for those involved in the case by their own authority.

In response, an official from the Seoul Western Police Station commented, “The main charges in the prosecution’s statement concern incidents that occurred after the case was referred.”

The prosecution has been releasing data on the results of supplemental investigations into cases with alleged insufficient police investigations, as the issue of supplemental investigation rights remains the final key point in prosecutorial reform. While it is natural to investigate related cases involving the same victim and suspect, there are criticisms that portraying charges arising after the case was out of police hands as police shortcomings is excessive. A police official rebutted, “The prosecution’s language—‘simple,’ ‘supplemental investigation,’ ‘identified’—makes it sound as if there were issues with the police investigation,” adding, “Strictly speaking, it was not about uncovering additional crimes, but rather about further investigating related incidents that occurred after the referral.”

Although the prosecution’s decision to apply charges beyond obstruction of business—such as violation of the Stalking Punishment Act, which can carry heavier sentences—was a meaningful step for victim protection, some view the release of separate data even for less serious crimes as a deliberate move to target the police, who have faced criticism over the Namyangju murder case.

A prosecution official explained, “Up until the referral, it was a single instance of obstruction of business,” but added, “The suspect was a regular at the establishment, and the victim testified to concerns about further threats, so we did not see this as an isolated incident.”

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