Political Circles Favor 'Selective', Legal Community Insists on 'Full'... Tug of War Over Scope of Supplementary Investigative Authority

Democratic Party Embraces Cautious Approach to "Exceptional Supplementary Investigations"
Legal Community: "Selecting Exception Cases Is Unrealistic in Practice"

While the Democratic Party of Korea is pursuing the complete abolition of the prosecution’s supplementary investigative authority, a cautious stance is spreading within the party itself, with calls for limited exceptions. Meanwhile, the legal community is emphasizing the need for full recognition of the supplementary investigation authority, warning that restricting it based on the type of crime or the parties involved could hinder fact-finding, undermine victim relief functions, and compromise substantive truth.

According to political sources as of July 20, discussions within the Democratic Party regarding the supplementary investigative authority have largely coalesced around four main proposals. Hardliners including Assembly members Seo Young-kyo and Kim Yong-min, as well as Gyeonggi Governor Choo Mi-ae, insist on abolishing all direct supplementary investigations by prosecutors and firmly separating prosecutorial investigation from indictment. On the other hand, Assembly members Hong Kiwon, Park Bumgye, Maeng Sungkyu and others advocate for exception clauses, allowing prosecutors’ direct supplementary investigations only for certain serious offenses, sexual crimes, crimes against social minorities such as children and disabled persons, and cases nearing the statute of limitations. Additionally, there is a party task force proposal to only strengthen the right to request supplementary investigations, as well as a proposal from Justice Minister Jeong Seongho to review all cases the police choose not to refer for indictment, enabling prosecutorial review of all such cases.

However, the legal community has expressed concerns not only about the complete abolition of the supplementary investigation authority, but also about the effectiveness of the cautious approach and exceptions proposed within the Democratic Party. Considering the complex nature of crimes, they highlight that attempting to artificially distinguish investigative targets could worsen fairness issues and confusion at the front lines. For example, sexual crimes may involve accompanying property crimes, and many crimes lack clearly identified victims, making it unrealistic to allocate investigative authority based on crime categories.

Kwon Naegeon, attorney at Law Firm Trinity (Judicial Research and Training Institute, Class 35), also noted, "The standards for defining social minorities are unclear," adding, "It makes no sense to permit supplementary investigation for small-scale fraud victims while excluding large-scale fraud victims." He further pointed out that viewing supplementary investigations as a benevolent measure for particular demographics misses the point. "In practice, the areas where thorough record examination and fact verification are most crucial are complex property crimes. Focusing exceptions mainly on certain serious offences is out of touch with the real needs on the ground," he added.

The Association of Former Prosecutors, whose members include former Ministers of Justice and Prosecutors-General, has also called for the full recognition of prosecutors’ supplementary investigative authority. In its statement issued on July 15, the group argued, "It is not only legally inconsistent but also potentially unconstitutional to deny prosecution investigators the function of investigation, especially since they hold the authority to request warrants and indict." The statement added, "Filing for a warrant or indictment is an expression of prosecutors’ belief in guilt," and reasoned, "Demanding that prosecutors make decisions regarding indictment or warrant requests without supplementary action when evidence is lacking is illogical." In other words, the procedures for evidence supplementation needed for truth-finding cannot be restricted by either the type of crime or the nature of the victim involved.

The academic community has also explained that, because of the legal nature of supplementary investigations, it is not possible to differentiate by type of crime. Han Sang-hee, professor at Konkuk University Law School, stated, "Supplementary investigation is, in essence, the final fact-checking procedure at the indictment stage, building upon prosecutorial powers." He continued, "Investigation and prosecution are consecutive processes of collection, analysis, and evaluation of facts, and the final responsibility for analysis and evaluation must rest with the prosecutor." He further emphasized, "This is an issue of allocating investigative authority, and there is no reason to limit supplementary investigations only to certain crimes or exceptions—it should naturally be permitted for all crimes."

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