How Can Deliberately Concealed Cases Be Detected Through Paperwork Alone? [Jang Yungi Ignites Debate Over Prosecutors' Supplementary Investigations] ⑤

Criminal Procedure Act Task Force Bill Proposed by Ruling Party

Complete Removal of Prosecutor's Investigative Authority Clause

Only the Right to Request Supplementary Investigations Remains

Legal Professionals: "Can Only Identify Formal Defects"

"Difficult to Detect Concealment or Evidence Destruction"

The Criminal Procedure Act task force bill proposed by the Democratic Party of Korea centers on the complete removal of Article 196 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which stipulates the prosecutor's investigative authority, leaving only the prosecutor's right to request supplementary investigations from the police. To prevent investigation delays, the bill specifies a deadline requiring police to complete investigations within one month from the date of request (with a possible extension of up to one additional month). It also stipulates that if a judicial police officer fails to comply without a valid reason, a request for replacement of the investigator can be made.

However, legal professionals unanimously argue that such control measures are detached from the realities of investigative practice. In actual investigations, it is often through subtle circumstances not captured in documents or through face-to-face questioning of related parties that the truth behind a case is uncovered. In a system where prosecutors are restricted to requesting supplementary investigations based solely on the 'paper records' submitted by the police, as in the proposed amendment, it would be impossible to catch poorly conducted or covered-up investigations like the second or third 'Jang Yungi incident.' Critics argue that the very idea of controlling investigations through paperwork and deadlines alone, while ignoring the complexities on the ground, is a textbook case of bureaucratic decision-making.

Doubts Over the Effectiveness of Investigator Replacement

If prosecutors are stripped of their authority to conduct supplementary investigations, it will become virtually impossible to uncover 'hidden (concealed) cases' that result in unjust victims. A current chief prosecutor pointed out, "Requests for supplementary investigations based only on documents can at best highlight procedural flaws or misunderstandings of legal principles. When, as in the Jang Yungi case, someone deliberately covers up or tightly wraps up a case, it is difficult to detect this just by reviewing the records." Another attorney from Seocho-dong said, "If prosecutors only request supplementary investigations and the police are left to reinvestigate, the information that was originally intended to be hidden will likely be manipulated even more cleverly. Even if the case is returned, it is difficult to verify on paper, so the case may just circulate endlessly." Another lawyer criticized, "Delays in case handling are inevitable, and delayed justice is worse than false justice."

Legal experts also argue that inserting a disciplinary-like investigator replacement clause to enforce supplementary investigation requests is unlikely to be effective. If an investigator is replaced or a reinvestigation is requested, the handling of not only the case at hand but also other pending cases (third, fourth, etc.) could be serially delayed, resulting in a backlog. One attorney specializing in criminal cases said, "If the case is tossed back and the order is simply to 'replace the person in charge,' from the investigator's perspective, it's just one less case to handle. Since investigation is not the police's only core duty, they can just say, 'I'll move to another department,' so there is essentially no practical benefit." He added, "Ultimately, only case processing will be further delayed, and the flawed system will end up shifting all responsibility onto individuals."

Is Judicial Control Possible Through Documents?

Experts say that the limitations of 'documentary control' have already been demonstrated by statistics. The 'right to request corrective action,' introduced during the 2021 investigative authority reform to control police investigations, has become virtually obsolete. According to Supreme Prosecutors’ Office statistics, as of 2024, out of a total of 106,703 cases in which the police decided to halt investigations and forwarded records to the prosecution, corrective action was requested in only 1,592 cases (1.49%). The system has become ineffective because it is difficult to thoroughly identify legal violations or signs of cover-up based solely on transferred paper records. A current chief prosecutor remarked, "There is a fundamental difference between a prosecutor directly conducting a supplementary investigation and the police doing so upon a prosecutor's request, because the subject of the investigation changes."

As a result, concerns over the abolition of the prosecution's supplementary investigative authority are spreading rapidly. The National Court Administration of the Supreme Court recently submitted an opinion to the National Assembly, stating that "sufficient complementary measures must be prepared to prevent side effects" regarding the abolition of this authority. Lee Seokyeon, chairman of the Presidential Committee for National Unity, also posted on Facebook on July 12 that "the complete abolition of the prosecutor's right to request supplementary investigation is unconstitutional."

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