“Serious Crimes Investigation Office Holds Briefings, but What About the Public Prosecution Office?”... Hongseong Branch Prosecutors Demand Transparency from Ministry of Justice and Supreme Prosecutors’ Office

Front-Line Prosecutors at Hongseong Branch Share Collective Opinion on ePros
"Plans and Vision Must Be Explained to Members at a Crossroads"
Proposal for Maintaining Current Staffing Levels and Establishing a 'Supplementary Investigation Supervision Department'

As the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office and the launch of the Public Prosecution Office approaches on October 2, frontline prosecutors are demanding that the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office release concrete plans regarding the organization and personnel management of the Public Prosecution Office. They point out that, unlike the Serious Crimes Investigation Office, which is holding recruitment briefings for its own members, even internal members of the Public Prosecution Office are not being sufficiently informed about its future.

On July 1, the Prosecutor General Woojung Shim, who resigned after only nine months in office, was reflected distortedly through the sculpture at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul. The Special Investigation on the Coup plans to investigate Prosecutor General Woojung Shim for abuse of power and other charges after he immediately gave up on the appeal following the cancellation of the arrest of former President Yoon Seok-youl. 2025.07.01 Photo by Dongju Yoon

On August 10, according to legal sources, front-line prosecutors at the Hongseong Branch of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office posted a message on the internal system, ePros, titled “We Urge Preparations and Explanations for the Opening of the Public Prosecution Office.”

They requested that the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office present and explain their plans and vision for the future of the Public Prosecution Office to the members of the current prosecution, who are standing at a crossroads regarding their future options.

They also pointed out that while the transitional task force for the Serious Crimes Investigation Office is conducting recruitment briefings to attract top talent from within the prosecution, they questioned, “What is the Prosecutors' Office, which is to be converted into the Public Prosecution Office, actually doing?” They went on to argue, “Shouldn't the Prosecutors' Office also reorganize itself with the objective of retaining outstanding personnel and provide explanations about this? It is not a matter of simply telling people to join the Serious Crimes Investigation Office if they want to conduct investigations, or to stay behind if they do not.”

The prosecutors insisted that the staffing levels for prosecutors and employees at the Public Prosecution Office must be finalized as soon as possible. While the number of prosecutors is determined by law, the number of Prosecutors' Office employees is set by subordinate decrees. However, there is currently no specific provision in the new Public Prosecution Office Act—scheduled to take effect in the near future—that specifies employee numbers, making it difficult to predict the future organization’s scale. They argued that, given the need for supplementary investigations, the recovery of criminal proceeds, and the function of representing the public interest, at a minimum, current staffing levels must be maintained.

They also proposed establishing a separate “Supplementary Investigation Supervision Department.” Under the revised Criminal Procedure Act, prosecutors manage whether police conduct supplementary investigations and, in certain circumstances, can extend periods for supplementary investigations or request the removal or discipline of police officers. Therefore, they argue, an organization dedicated to this role is needed.

The prosecutors explained that if this department regularly supervises cases where police are conducting supplementary investigations and reviews their progress in advance, the prosecutor in charge will be able to concentrate more fully on decisions about indictments and on new supplementary investigation requests. Under the current reporting system, they pointed out that prosecutors must spend significant time and effort in continuously monitoring the progress of each supplementary investigation.

In addition, they stressed the need to discuss whether prosecutors’ and staff salaries, allowances, and welfare benefits will be maintained after the transition to the Public Prosecution Office; how the duties of the current assistant managers working in prosecutors’ offices will change; and how the process for requesting supplementary investigations in cases where suspects are detained and forwarded will operate. They also pointed out the need to clarify whether, given that the Public Prosecution Office will no longer serve as an investigative agency, it will allow direct filings of complaints and accusations.

The post received additional support from other members of the prosecution. One prosecutor commented, “Please also hold a briefing about the Public Prosecution Office,” while another wrote, “At least offer us the same level of information as the Serious Crimes Investigation Office’s task force.” “There is no vision or specific support policy for retaining internal personnel,” one opinion read, calling for the disclosure of all preparations for the Public Prosecution Office that have been considered so far.

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