"Supplementary Investigations Should Fall Under Prosecution Review"... Argument Raised at Party-Government Forum on Prosecution Reform

Joint Party-Government Forum on Criminal Justice System Reform
Held at Korea Press Center, Jung-gu, Seoul on May 6

In order to establish a new criminal justice system where investigation and prosecution are separated, there is a growing argument that the prosecution's authority to conduct supplementary investigations should be completely redefined as a non-coercive "prosecution review" function.

The Policy Committee of the Democratic Party of Korea and the Prosecution Reform Promotion Group, led by Yoon Chang-ryeol, held a joint party-government forum at the Korea Press Center in Jung-gu, Seoul on the morning of May 6. Professor Yoo Seung-ik of Myongji University, who gave the sole presentation that day, emphasized that prosecutors should be positioned not as the main agents of direct investigation, but rather as controllers and "gatekeepers" of the investigative process.

He stressed that the nature of supplementary investigations must be fundamentally changed. Professor Yoo explained that when prosecutors search for court rulings or consult specialized literature to determine whether to indict, such activities are not investigations that exercise coercive power over a person's body or property, but rather non-coercive intellectual activities in preparation for prosecution. Accordingly, he proposed that these activities should be legislated as "pre-prosecution fact verification," and that the existing "investigation report" prepared by prosecutors should be renamed and redefined as an internal "prosecution review opinion," which would not have evidentiary power.

Professor Yoo also strongly opposed the notion that prosecutors should retain exceptional direct supplementary investigation rights. He argued that it is not appropriate to allow supplementary investigation rights based on extremely rare cases, and that such issues should instead be resolved through procedural mechanisms. As specific alternatives, he suggested introducing an "urgent supplementary investigation request" system that would require the police to comply within a very short period, or granting prosecutors the authority to request that the head of a police agency replace an investigation team or investigator if the police repeatedly fail to comply with legitimate requests.

Additionally, in order to maximize the efficiency of investigations, the introduction of the UK's "Action Plan" and "Early Advice" systems was recommended. The idea is for prosecutors and police to collaborate from the early stages of an investigation to draft a type of investigative agreement that specifies the concrete facts necessary for indictment, a list of evidence to be secured, and compliance deadlines. Professor Yoo emphasized that if such standardized and precise guidelines take root, duplicate investigations and procedural delays can be fundamentally eliminated. He concluded that establishing a stable investigative structure depends on putting an end to the wasteful power struggle between the prosecution and the police.

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