Korean Bar Association Proposes Improvements to Criminal Procedure Act Revision: "Preventing Harm to the Public Is the Top Priority"

"Criminal Justice System Reform Needed for Checks and Balances"

The Korean Bar Association announced on July 10 that it is proposing improvement measures for the ongoing criminal procedure reform discussions in the National Assembly, prioritizing "the prevention of harm to the public" and "the discovery of substantive truth" as the highest values.

The Korean Bar Association

The Association believes that if any single institution monopolizes authority, corruption is inevitable. Therefore, it asserts that a careful institutional design based on mutual checks and balances is essential. First, it proposed that the scope of prosecutors' direct supplementary investigations should be rationally designed to ensure the discovery of substantive truth. The Association suggests that supplementary investigations should be permitted for "civil affairs cases" of a non-political nature, which directly affect the lives of the majority of the public, as well as for "cases recognized as identical," where the facts of the crime transferred by the police and the basic facts are the same.

In particular, it cited the recent "Jang Yunki murder case" as an example, noting that without the prosecution's supplementary investigation, fatal oversights and destruction of evidence might have been concealed. This was used to highlight the necessity of supplementary investigation powers as a check-and-balance mechanism.

The Association also suggested that if only limited supplementary investigation powers are recognized, the full transfer of all cases ("total case referral") system should be actively considered. It emphasized that this would serve as a double-check mechanism to prevent cases from being buried due to poor investigations and should be introduced first in areas where there is a risk of serious violations of citizens' rights, such as serious crimes like murder or child-related crimes, or cases of significant public interest.

Furthermore, the Association argued that the authority for direction and supervision by legal professionals should be secured in investigations by special judicial police officers, which require a high degree of expertise. Since special officers in charge of specialized administrative areas such as food safety, environment, or labor may lack practical experience in compulsory investigations or legal knowledge, there are concerns about a decline in the quality of investigations. To address this, the Association explained that either a "dedicated legal advisor for special judicial police officers" system should be established, or the deployment of legal affairs officers in central government ministries and local governments should be made mandatory, so that attorneys can substantively review and control investigations from initiation to completion.

Additionally, the Association warned against the criminal justice system reform becoming solely focused on the distribution of authority among institutions and stressed that systems to effectively remedy victims' rights must be significantly strengthened. It urged that the victim's right to make statements and the right to review and copy evidence should be extended to the investigation stage, and that the victim attorney system should be comprehensively reformed so that independent legal support rights and the right to act as legal representatives in litigation are explicitly stated.

Finally, the Association emphasized the need to strengthen the right to counsel in order to prevent investigative gaps and protect the public's right to defense. It proposed making the participation of defense counsel mandatory in all major stages of investigation and stipulating the "Attorney-Client Privilege (ACP)" in the Criminal Procedure Act to guarantee the right to refuse seizure of materials and testimony. Furthermore, it requested the establishment of an "investigative human rights protection officer" system, staffed by attorneys, to grant effective oversight powers such as recommending changes to investigative methods or the replacement of investigators.

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