A barrier is lowered at the entrance to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-dong on the rainy 28th. The prosecution service will close its doors in September next year, following the parliamentary vote on the bill to abolish the prosecution service and other amendments to the Government Organization Act on the 26th. Yonhap News. 

With the amendment to the Government Organization Act abolishing the prosecution service passing the plenary session of the National Assembly on the 26th, voices of protest are growing within the prosecution service, calling the legislation unconstitutional and criticizing the leadership's lukewarm response.

According to legal circles on the 29th, Jeong Yu-mi, a research fellow at the Judicial Research and Training Institute (30th class, prosecutor general rank), wrote on the prosecution service's internal network E-Pros the previous afternoon, "I believe that the current leadership, who are in positions that should take responsibility but do not seem to know their roles, should indeed take responsibility."

She also mentioned Cha Ho-dong, head of the Criminal Division at the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, who resigned immediately after the bill's passage, stating, "Director Cha is a talent who should protect the future of the prosecution service and is not in a position to take responsibility for the current dissolution of the prosecution service." She urged, "Those in positions of responsibility should first persuade Director Cha to withdraw his resignation. And then, take responsibility yourselves."

Research Fellow Jeong criticized the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, where the prosecution leadership is convened, saying, "Over 2,000 prosecutors and over 10,000 investigators, administrative officials, and clerks are trembling with anxiety, unsure of their future." She added, "Despite this situation, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, which holds the steering wheel of the prosecution service, remains silent. There has been no statement of position, such as 'We have responded in this way, but it was not realized for some reason, and we are therefore regretful to our members.'"

Research Fellow Jeong pointed out, "Even the prosecutors general at the local level are excessively quiet." She questioned, "If they are aware of the members' anxiety, shouldn't they at least attempt to gather the members' opinions by office and convey them to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office?"

Kim Yun-seon (33rd class), head of the Cheonan District Prosecutors' Office, also posted a message on E-Pros on the same day, stating, "Looking at how the Supreme Prosecutors' Office has handled the amendment process to the Government Organization Act so far, I have no faith in how the acting prosecutor general will create criminal justice procedures for the public over the next year, and I question how we should trust and follow the Supreme Prosecutors' Office."

She continued, "The Supreme Prosecutors' Office abruptly revised the guidelines for jury trials, omitting the opinion-gathering process, and instead of addressing the wounds of investigators from the 'money-bound note band' incident, they disseminated what appears to be virtually unnecessary work-related communications." She criticized, "I am concerned that they will continue to respond to the prosecution service's organizational reform efforts in such unilateral or difficult-to-understand ways."

She also addressed Noh Man-seok, acting Prosecutor General (Deputy Prosecutor General), saying, "I thought he would explain the response measures in detail if the amendment passed, but at that precious moment, he just said 'It's regrettable' and 'I'll speak later,' and then went home." She added, "Perhaps because my expectations and trust were so high, I felt a sense of self-deprecation and shame."

A view of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 26th. Yonhap News. 

Park Jae-eok (29th class), head of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, also posted a message that day, arguing that the Supreme Prosecutors' Office should file an adjudication of unconstitutionality with the Constitutional Court.

Prosecutor General Park emphasized, "The term 'prosecution service,' which is an official designation set by the Constitution, cannot be abolished or changed by law." He added, "Various sectors have pointed out the possibility of unconstitutionality regarding the Government Organization Act."

In addition, there have been a series of posts opposing the abolition of the prosecution service, with some expressing their resignations and others pointing out its unconstitutionality.

Choi In-sang (32nd class), head of the Criminal Division 1 at the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office, posted a farewell message that morning, stating, "The separation of investigation and prosecution not only does not conform to the current Criminal Procedure Act but also cannot properly fulfill the role of protecting citizens from crime." He added, "While the Deputy Prosecutor General stated that he respects the National Assembly's resolution, I cannot."

He continued, "In the 23 years I have handled cases, I have never fabricated evidence to eliminate political opponents or pursue personal gain." He added, "The immense power that the prosecution service is said to possess seemed to be absent in my office, at least."

Prosecutor Choi emphasized, "Frankly, I doubt whether I can prepare for the follow-up measures of the amendment over the next year." He concluded, "I will lay down my duties as a prosecutor and return as a citizen to closely watch how the prosecution reform is concluded."

Kang Baek-shin (34th class), a prosecutor at the Daegu High Prosecutors' Office, posted on E-Pros, "September 26, 2025, is not the day of the prosecution service's abolition, but the day of the Constitution's abolition," pointing out the unconstitutionality of the amendment.

Prosecutor Kang argued, "Even setting aside all other unconstitutional elements and their negative impact on the protection of citizens' basic rights, it is obvious that legislation that violates the literal meaning of the constitutionally stipulated terms 'prosecutor general' and 'prosecutor,' and deprives the president of the power to appoint the prosecutor general, cannot be legal."

He further elaborated, "If this legislation is deemed constitutional, it would mean the disappearance of the constitutional umbrella for the basic structure of the prosecutorial system, and a regression to a system where investigative agencies are constantly created and dissolved according to partisan interests whenever the regime changes."

Yonhap News