"Fact-Finding Team on Prosecutorial Abuse Allegations Launched Today... Legal Community Warns of 'Self-Investigation' Limitations"

Fact-Finding Team Begins Work at Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office
Kim Suhong and Four Senior Prosecutors Join the Team
Concerns Over Effectiveness: "Prosecutors Investigating Prosecutors"

The fact-finding team under the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, tasked with investigating alleged abuses of prosecutorial authority, was launched on June 24. While the stated aim is to clarify the truth behind cases selected by the Ministry of Justice's Committee for Prosecutorial Human Rights and Future, there are concerns within the legal community that, since the team is composed mainly of prosecutors, its independence and effectiveness may be difficult to guarantee.

Supreme Prosecutors' Office, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News

According to the legal community on June 24, Kim Suhong, Director of the Prosecution Division at the Ministry of Justice and head of the fact-finding team, officially began work by reporting to the team's office at the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office for the first time that day. The team is expected to include team leaders such as Shin Douk, Head of Criminal Division 1 at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, Chun Daewon, Chief Prosecutor, Shin Donghwan, Head of the Financial and Securities Crimes Joint Investigation Division at the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office, and Han Moonhyuk, Prosecutor at the Suwon High Prosecutors' Office. In addition, a total of eight prosecutors at the entry-level rank—two for each team—will be dispatched.

The team is expected to look into seven alleged cases of prosecutorial authority abuse, which were selected as the first round of investigations by the Future Committee. These include the Ssangbangwool illegal remittance to North Korea case, the Daejang-dong case, the case involving former Deputy Director Kim Yong of the Democratic Research Institute, the Wirye New Town case, and the shooting of a public official in the West Sea, among others.

However, even before the team's official launch, the legal community has pointed out that controversy over "self-investigation" is inevitable. Structurally, since the allegations of prosecutorial abuse are being investigated by internal prosecution personnel, it will be difficult to win public trust regardless of the outcome.

One deputy chief prosecutor commented, "If the team had been organized mainly with external personnel, objectivity could have been expected. But since it is composed of internal prosecutors, it is essentially prosecutors investigating prosecutors, and it is difficult to avoid criticism of self-investigation. No matter the result, it is questionable whether the public or political circles will readily accept it." He added, "Inside the organization, most people are only one or two degrees apart, so for a proper investigation to take place, internal conflicts and burdens would also have to be endured."

The shortage of prosecutorial personnel is also fueling the debate over the team's effectiveness. With special prosecutors, various joint investigation teams, and existing frontline casework all overlapping, the demand for prosecutors is already at a saturation point. A legal expert familiar with prosecutorial affairs said, "Even now, frontline offices are understaffed, so if a large number of entry-level prosecutors are reassigned, there are concerns about whether the team can be properly formed and stably operated. The very creation of the team could add further burden to the field."

There is also concern that, if criminal liability issues arise during the investigation, the team's role could overlap with that of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). Under the current system, criminal investigations into prosecutorial abuse of authority or dereliction of duty by prosecutors fall under the jurisdiction of the CIO. A prosecution official noted, "If issues of criminal liability arise during the investigation, the matters will ultimately have to be referred to the CIO, which could result in duplicating work."

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