58% Oppose 'Separation of Investigation and Prosecution'… "Concerns over Weakened Crime Response and Abuse of Power by New Agencies"

Bar Association Survey on Prosecution Reform… 88% of Responding Lawyers Say "Prosecutor Should Have Right to Request Supplementary Investigation"

44.6% Support "Granting Right to Conduct Supplementary Investigations"… Bar Association: "Indicates Need for Institutional Control over Judicial Police"

Anticipated Clash Between Ruling and Opposition Parties Over 'Abolition of Prosecutor's Office' (Seoul=Yonhap News) Reporter Lee Dong-hae = A scene at the Supreme Prosecutor's Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 25th, ahead of the National Assembly's plenary session to deliberate a bill to abolish the Prosecutor's Office. The Democratic Party of Korea has announced its intention to pass the bill, while the People Power Party has stated its intention to respond with filibustering. 2025.9.25 eastsea@yna.co.kr

In a survey on prosecution reform conducted by the Korean Bar Association, 58.0% of respondents, totaling 1,382 individuals, opposed the organizational separation of investigative and prosecutorial powers. The proportion of respondents who agreed was 41.0% (976 people).

The Bar Association announced the results of its "Survey on Government Organization Restructuring Measures" on the 25th, which was conducted from the 12th to the 19th among all its members. A total of 2,383 lawyers out of approximately 37,000 members of the Bar Association participated in the survey.

Lawyers who responded in opposition cited reasons such as ▲ weakened crime response capabilities ▲ concerns over abuse of power by the police or newly established investigative agencies ▲ and the inherent impossibility of separating investigative and prosecutorial functions.

Conversely, lawyers who expressed agreement cited reasons such as ▲ preventing the abuses and power imbalances resulting from concentrated prosecutorial authority ▲ and restoring the original functions of the prosecution through the separation of investigative and prosecutorial powers.

A majority of respondents also indicated that government policies related to prosecution reform should be pursued with sufficient deliberation and preparation time.

Regarding the preparation period required for the implementation of the bill, 52.4% of respondents answered '2 years or more,' and 22.0% answered '1 year or more.'

The Bar Association interpreted this as, "The majority of lawyers, who are legal professionals, have expressed their perception and concerns that a one-year grace period, as stipulated in the bill to amend the Government Organization Act, is insufficient."

Furthermore, regarding the prosecutor's right to request supplementary investigations, approximately nine out of ten responding lawyers believe that 'prosecutors at the prosecuting office should be granted the right to request supplementary investigations from the police.' Moreover, nearly half of the respondents suggested granting the right to conduct supplementary investigations to directly rectify deficiencies in police investigations.

This suggests that even with the establishment of a prosecuting office under the prosecution reform proposed by the government and the ruling party, which would separate investigation and prosecution from the existing Prosecutor's Office, there is a need for judicial control over the police. Therefore, at least minimal control and oversight mechanisms, such as the right for prosecuting office prosecutors to request supplementary police investigations, should be retained.

In response to whether prosecutors at the prosecuting office should be granted the right to request supplementary investigations, 88.1% of respondents, totaling 2,101 individuals, expressed agreement.

Regarding specific methods, among those who agreed, 44.6% (1,064 people) answered 'both the right to request supplementary investigations and the right to conduct supplementary investigations should be granted.' This was followed by 'only the right to request supplementary investigations' at 32.1% (765 people), and the right to request supplementary investigations and the right to investigate before indictment at 11.4% (272 people).

The Bar Association stated, "This is interpreted to mean that a significant portion of respondents who favor the separation of prosecutorial and investigative powers also believe in the need for institutional control rather than granting complete investigative closure authority to judicial police officers."

Regarding control measures in cases where prosecutors at the prosecuting office are allowed to conduct supplementary investigations, 34.6% of respondents answered 'court control is necessary.' The proportion of respondents who stated that control by the National Investigation Committee is necessary was 20.9%, and those who believed that supplementary investigation powers should be granted without limitation was 37.0%.

In response to this, the Bar Association explained, "This reflects the experiences of lawyers on the front lines, and it is understood that the majority of lawyers agree on the necessity of a mechanism to check judicial police officers from the perspective of practical effectiveness in investigative procedures."

It also suggested, "In particular, there were many individual opinions stating that despite the existence of the right to request supplementary investigations within the existing system, delays in investigations have been repeatedly caused by the so-called 'passing the buck' behavior between the prosecution and the police." Therefore, it is necessary to clearly define the responsibility and deadlines for supplementary investigations and to introduce an objective evaluation system. Edited by Hanmi Ilbo/Yonhap News

Korean Bar Association [Photo by Choi Won-jeong]