CIO Asserts "Prosecutor vs. Prosecutor"... Should Supplementary Investigation Requests Be an Exception Even in Cases Without Prosecutorial Authority?

CIO Opposes Prosecution Office's Request for Supplementary Investigation
Calls for Separate Procedure of "Requesting Additional Investigation"
In Cases Where CIO Lacks Indictment Authority,
Final Decision to Prosecute Lies with the Prosecution Office

Controversy is brewing over whether the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) should handle cases differently from other investigative agencies in cases where it does not have prosecutorial authority, especially as the CIO has opposed the prosecution's request for supplementary investigations. The CIO maintains that "prosecutor versus prosecutor" is a horizontal relationship, insisting on a separate procedure for "requesting additional investigation." However, critics point out that since the need for supplementary investigation is acknowledged, investigative completeness should take precedence over institutional status.

The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials, which has reissued an arrest warrant for President Yoon Suk-yeol, is continuing to deliberate on the timing of re-execution. On the 10th, the appearance of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials at the Government Complex Gwacheon in Gyeonggi Province.

According to legal sources on September 9, the CIO recently expressed its opposition to a measure that would allow prosecutors from the Prosecution Office to request supplementary investigations from CIO prosecutors. At a regular briefing on September 1, the CIO explained, “It is inappropriate for prosecutors to demand supplementary investigations from other prosecutors as they do with judicial police officers.” Instead, the CIO argued that when the prosecution deems additional investigation necessary, a separate procedure for "requesting additional investigation" from the CIO should be established.

The issue is that the CIO does not have prosecutorial authority in every case. In cases where the CIO only investigates and then hands the case over to the Prosecution Office, the decision to indict and maintain the prosecution is handled by prosecutors from the Prosecution Office. Starting October 2, the ability of prosecutors to conduct direct supplementary investigations will also be abolished, meaning that even if the records of a case transferred by the CIO are lacking, the Prosecution Office can no longer directly make up for them.

How to distinguish between the “request for additional investigation” suggested by the CIO and the existing request for supplementary investigation is another point of contention. Under the revised Criminal Procedure Act, a request for supplementary investigation comes with procedures such as deadlines for compliance and notification of results. In contrast, a request for additional investigation would require separate provisions regarding the obligation to comply and measures in the event of non-compliance.

A similar issue has already materialized. In the 1.58 billion won bribery case involving a former official of the Board of Audit and Inspection investigated by the CIO, the prosecution requested supplementary investigation, but the CIO did not comply, citing the lack of a legal basis. Since courts halted the prosecution’s direct supplementary investigation, only charges amounting to about 290 million won were brought, while the remaining allegations were dropped.

Lee Keunwoo, a professor of law at Gachon University, said, “For cases directly prosecuted by the CIO, it should be held accountable for the results of its investigation, but there is no reason for it to treat cases that are prosecuted by the Prosecution Office differently from other investigative agencies. What's important now is not institutional pride between agencies, but establishing a system capable of completing investigations and ensuring effective prosecution.”

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