Kim Jiyong: "Investigate so Prosecution Office Won't Need to Review Cases Again"... Gives General Answer on Resisting Outside Pressure

Asked About His Stance on Supplementary Investigation Powers: "Resolved Through Legislation"
On Controversy Over Prosecutors' Involvement in Investigations: "Requires Further Review"
"I'll Stake My Position on Investigative Independence"... Emphasizes Neutrality

At the confirmation hearing for Kim Jiyong, nominee to become the first chief of the Serious Crime Investigation Agency, held on Oct. 14 by the National Assembly’s Public Administration and Security Committee, lawmakers questioned him about the Prosecution Office’s authority to conduct supplementary investigations and the scope of prosecutors’ involvement in investigations. Kim said, “The Serious Crime Investigation Agency will complete its investigations so that the Prosecution Office does not need to conduct additional supplementary investigations.” However, he said that the rules on investigations, which allow prosecutors to influence the direction of police investigations, “require further review.”

Kim Jiyong, nominee for chief of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, takes an oath as a witness during a confirmation hearing at the National Assembly on Oct. 14, 2026. Photo by Yoon Dongju.

Kim previously opposed abolishing the prosecution’s authority to conduct supplementary investigations, arguing that eliminating it without an adequate alternative could leave gaps in the protection of crime victims. Lim Ho-seon, a lawmaker from the Democratic Party of Korea, asked Kim whether he still held that view. Kim emphasized that the principle of separating investigation from prosecution had been established through legislation and said the Serious Crime Investigation Agency would complete its investigations. Below are excerpts from the exchanges during the hearing.

At Kim Jiyong's confirmation hearing
Lim: Could you tell us what convictions and principles you hold regarding the separation of investigation from prosecution?
Kim: I have long agreed with the principle of separating investigation from prosecution. I believe everything has now been resolved through legislation. As a public official, I will faithfully comply with the Constitution and the law.
Lim: Do you still believe that the Prosecution Office should retain at least some authority to conduct supplementary investigations? Or do you believe it should not?
Kim: This matter has been resolved through legislation.
Lim: No, I’m asking about your personal conviction.
Kim: As chief of the Serious Crime Investigation Agency, I will ensure that our agency conducts complete investigations so that the Prosecution Office does not need to conduct supplementary investigations.

Near the end of his questioning, Lim again asked whether the Prosecution Office needed to conduct supplementary investigations itself. Kim said, “The Prosecution Office’s authority to conduct supplementary investigations was removed because of the abuses of the prosecution in the past,” adding, “The Serious Crime Investigation Agency will handle investigations so thoroughly that the Prosecution Office will not need to review them again.” Kim, who had previously argued that the prosecution needed authority to conduct supplementary investigations, thus pledged as head of the Serious Crime Investigation Agency to ensure that the Prosecution Office would not need to conduct additional investigations. However, he did not explain how the two agencies would cooperate if additional evidence needed to be secured or facts clarified in an actual case.

Kim Jiyong, nominee for chief of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, returns to his seat after submitting his witness oath to the committee chair at a confirmation hearing held at the National Assembly on the 14th. 2026.10.14 Photo by Yoon Dongju

"Using Warrant Applications as a Pretext to Intervene in Police Investigations"

Lawmakers also raised concerns that prosecutors could still intervene in investigations despite the separation of investigation from prosecution. Yong Hye-in of the Basic Income Party asked Kim for his view, saying that the revised Criminal Procedure Act could conflict with the rules on investigations, which are subordinate regulations.

The provision Yong took issue with was Article 59, Paragraph 5 of the rules on investigations. It allows prosecutors, when applying for a warrant, to offer the police opinions on matters to investigate, evidence to collect, and the application of laws, and requires the police to reflect those opinions in their investigations. Yong argued that the rules on investigations had expanded the authority under the Criminal Procedure Act to request supplementary investigations into a means of intervening in police investigations.

When Yong asked Kim what the legal basis under the Criminal Procedure Act was for the provision, he was unable to answer, saying, “I’m not sure whether there is a provision that serves as a basis for that...” Asked next whether it was consistent with the intent of the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act, Kim replied, “Since the Criminal Procedure Act allows prosecutors to ask the police to address deficiencies when applying for a warrant, I think the police would have to cooperate under the rules on investigations.”

Yong argued that the rules on investigations, which allow prosecutors to offer the police opinions on the direction of investigations and evidence collection when applying for warrants, went against the intent of the Criminal Procedure Act. She also questioned a provision that allows prosecutors to demand the submission of investigative materials during the police’s process of requesting legal advice. Kim explained that the provisions were intended to facilitate cooperation between prosecutors and police, but also said, “I agree with a considerable part of what you have said.” However, he deferred judgment on the legal basis for the provisions and whether they needed to be revised.

"Would You Stake Your Position on Resisting a Minister's Orders on an Investigation?"..."Of Course"

The hearing also addressed the political independence of the Serious Crime Investigation Agency. Lee Sang-sik of the Democratic Party of Korea asked how Kim would respond if the minister of the interior and safety exercised the authority to direct an investigation into a specific case.

Lee cited the case of a former prosecutor general who resigned after accepting an order from the justice minister to direct an investigation, and asked, “I think our nominee should do the same. Would you do that?” Kim replied, “Of course.” Asked whether he could promise the public that he would stake his position on protecting the fairness and independence of investigations, he said, “I promise.”

Kim Jiyong, nominee for chief of the Serious Crime Investigation Agency, listens to lawmakers' questions while touching his nose during a confirmation hearing at the National Assembly on October 14, 2026. Photo by Yoon Dongju

However, when asked about his experience of resisting pressure from those in power, Kim did not provide a specific example. Joo Ho-young of the People Power Party voiced concern that those in power might take political interests into account when appointing heads of investigative agencies. He then asked Kim to give a specific example of a case he had handled according to his convictions after rejecting past attempts by those in power to persuade or pressure him.

At Kim Jiyong's confirmation hearing
Joo: Give us a few examples of cases in which you resisted pressure and acted according to your convictions, apart from the case involving Yoon Suk Yeol's mother-in-law that you mentioned earlier. Well-known prosecutors all have a few such stories. If you have spent 20 or 30 years as a prosecutor without ever taking on those above you, you cannot call yourself a principled prosecutor. Give us some examples.
Kim: It would be difficult for me to go through each case here, but I have never handled a case with political considerations in mind. I looked only at the cases. I followed only the law, the facts, and legal principles.
Joo: In your decades as a prosecutor, surely there was a great deal of pressure. Some of it may have come from senior colleagues in the organization, and some from people who could influence those with the power to make personnel decisions. I’m asking you to give an example of a time you pushed through that pressure. If you say you cannot talk about it, that means it never happened.
Kim: In fact, while handling cases, I have heard people above me say, “Don’t handle this case.”

Kim did not explain which specific case he had faced pressure over or how he had responded at the time. Joo moved on to another question because time was limited, and there was no further questioning on the matter.

Earlier, in his opening remarks at the hearing, Kim said, “I will ensure that the Serious Crime Investigation Agency can conduct fair investigations based solely on the law and principles, without being swayed by outside pressure.” He also pledged to “boldly close investigations when a crime is not established and uphold political neutrality and investigative independence.” He also emphasized expanding specialized personnel for serious crime investigations and strengthening supplementary investigations involving socially vulnerable people.

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