Criminal Law Scholars: "Prosecutors’ Supplementary Investigation Powers Needed... Methods to Control Police Investigations Should Be Reconsidered"

"Concerns Over Reforms Without Adequate Deliberation"

On July 30, 62 scholars specializing in criminal law expressed their concerns regarding the Democratic Party's move to push for the passage of an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act through the National Assembly plenary session. This amendment is centered on abolishing prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority.

Yonhap News

In their statement released on the 30th, they said, "While we fundamentally agree with the separation of investigation and prosecution, it should not mean a complete disconnection between the two. We express serious concerns over such a reform pushed forward without sufficient deliberation."

The statement was signed by legal scholars specializing in criminal law, including Kim Myungsoo, Professor at Seoul National University School of Law, Kang Dongbum, Professor Emeritus at Ewha Womans University School of Law, as well as current and former law school professors and research fellows from institutes such as the Korean Women's Development Institute.

They argued, "Prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority should be preserved as a means to control and supplement police investigations. We urge a reevaluation of methods for supervising police investigations, including prosecutorial investigation guidance, supplementary investigations, and the 'total transfer' system, where all cases investigated by the police are handed over to the prosecution."

They further stated, "Limited supplementary investigations by prosecutors on cases initiated by the police are different from the former practice of prosecutors exercising unlimited investigatory powers. The abuse of supplementary investigation authority can be institutionally controlled, and the negative consequences of total abolition may be even greater."

They asserted that concerns about potential abuse of authority by prosecutors should not serve as justification for abolishing supplementary investigation powers.

They also emphasized the necessity of judicial control mechanisms over special judicial police. "Prosecutorial investigative direction over special judicial police must be maintained," they argued. "Since investigative procedures are the first stage of criminal proceedings, issues regarding prosecution reform and supplementary investigation powers should be determined according to the legal principles of judicial process, rather than political interests."

They stressed, "Voices against the complete abolition of supplementary investigation authority should not be dismissed as mere political factionalism. We express serious concerns over reforms that seek to push through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act, which affect all citizens, in a rushed manner without sufficient deliberation."

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