Professor Kim Dong-soo, Wonkwang Digital University

 On June 11th, Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min proposed a bill to abolish the Prosecutors' Office Act, along with a bill on the establishment and operation of the Prosecution Office. Lawmaker Min Hyung-bae proposed a bill on the establishment and operation of the Major Crimes Investigation Office, and lawmaker Jang Kyung-tae proposed a bill on the establishment and operation of the National Investigation Committee. In essence, these are 'Prosecution Reform Bills' aimed at abolishing the Prosecutors' Office and establishing a Prosecution Office, a Major Crimes Investigation Office, and a National Investigation Committee. 

The Democratic Party announced that it would process the bill to abolish the Prosecutors' Office Act in the National Assembly plenary session on September 25th. This agreement was reportedly reached during a dinner meeting attended by party leadership, including Chairman Chung Chae-rae, and President Lee Jae-myung. 

The plan is to first process the Government Organization Act, which stipulates the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office and the establishment of alternative bodies such as the Prosecution Office and the Major Crimes Investigation Office before Chuseok (Korean Thanksgiving), and then legislate the detailed aspects of so-called 'prosecution reform' at a later date. 

South Korea's 'Prosecutors' Office Act' has served as the foundation of the criminal justice system for over 70 years since its enactment in 1949. It has been consistently argued that the current prosecution system does not meet the demands of the times, considering the structure of our society and public legal sentiment today. 

The prosecution has established a power-concentrated investigative structure, holding not only investigative and prosecutorial authority but also the right to request warrants. Power is excessively concentrated in the hands of the prosecution, and the prosecution is not subject to external checks. As a result, the prosecution wields unchecked power, leading to fabricated investigations, targeted investigations, and politically motivated investigations, allowing those in power who need punishment to escape, while powerless citizens are unjustly punished. 

The reality is that "former prosecutor privileges," also known as "former official favoritism," are rampant. The fact that the public's trust in the prosecution is very low, leading to a decline in trust in the entire judicial system, is self-evident, especially as a prosecution cartel is formed, with some former officials receiving astronomical fees. 

The bill to abolish the Prosecutors' Office Act proposes to separate investigative and prosecutorial powers. The Prosecution Office would be responsible for indictment and its maintenance, as well as the constitutional right to request warrants. The Major Crimes Investigation Office would be established under the Minister of the Interior and Safety to specialize in investigating major crimes. 

This is not an incorrect approach. 

The goal is to restore public trust in the entire judicial system by reorganizing the criminal justice system to ensure professional and balanced prosecution and investigation. In other words, dispersing the prosecution's power to create a system of mutual checks and balances is a desirable direction. 

Arguably, the separation of investigative and prosecutorial bodies would ensure both accountability and efficiency through mutual checks, and it could also institutionally prevent concerns about excessive investigations or unjust dismissals of indictments. 

It is true that the current prosecution system and investigative practices have many problems. A considerable number of citizens have suffered due to unreasonable investigations and prosecutions. Change is inevitable in some form. 

However, instead of abolishing the Prosecutors' Office Act entirely, it might be worth considering partially amending the Act and strengthening the Prosecutors' Disciplinary Law. As prosecution reform is a significant issue, the process of gathering opinions from all walks of life is essential to avoid hasty legislation. 

Each new administration talks about the necessity of prosecution reform. Sensitive and contentious issues require a public deliberation process. Thorough consultations with the opposition party are necessary, given the need for revisions to the Government Organization Act following deliberation by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and party-government consultations. 

Prosecutors, as representatives of the public interest, must serve the entire nation by protecting the human rights of citizens and adhering to due process in accordance with the Constitution and laws. In particular, upholding political neutrality and refraining from abusing their authority will be crucial for the realization of the rule of law.

#AbolishProsecutorsOfficeAct #ProsecutionReform #ProsecutionOffice #MajorCrimesInvestigationOffice #NationalInvestigationCommittee #SeparationOfInvestigativeAndProsecutorialPowers #FormerOfficialFavoritism #JudicialTrust #RuleOfLaw #HastyLegislation

※ The opinions of external contributors may differ from the editorial direction of this publication.