🚨 Prosecution Reform: Power Checks and New Paradigm of Judicial Justice

Today Korean Social News | 2025.05.27

📌 Top Prosecutors Resign One After Another... Internal Shake-up Ahead of Prosecution Reform

💬 Seoul Central District Prosecutor Lee Chang-soo and Deputy Chief Prosecutor Cho Sang-won recently announced their resignations. Prosecutor Lee cited health reasons for his resignation, and both prosecutors were involved in investigating the stock manipulation case related to First Lady Kim Keon-hee and Deutsch Motors. Their resignations came about two months after returning to work following the Constitutional Court's rejection of the National Assembly's impeachment motion, creating tension within the prosecution. Currently, the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office has decided to re-investigate the allegations involving the First Lady and has formed a special team for the investigation. In this situation, discussions about prosecution reform are drawing attention again, with criticism that the prosecution holds all powers including investigation, prosecution, trial maintenance, and sentence execution, making it the "fourth branch of government," and the need for structural reform is being raised.

Summary

• Prosecution reform is a structural change to distribute the excessive power of prosecutors and strengthen democratic control.
• It aims to protect people's human rights through separation of investigation and prosecution powers to achieve mutual checks and balances.
• The core goal is to reorganize the prosecution's monopolistic power structure that has been maintained for 70 years to meet international standards.

1️⃣ Definition

Prosecution reform means a process to distribute the excessive power held by prosecutors and put them under democratic control to become a fair investigation and prosecution agency for the people. The key is to reform the power structure of the prosecution, which has monopolized both investigation and prosecution powers since 1953 and enjoyed virtually unchecked power.

This does not simply mean reducing the prosecution's authority, but rather institutional improvement to better protect people's human rights and realize judicial justice through checks and balances between investigation and prosecution agencies.

💡 Why is it important?

• It prevents excessive concentration of prosecutorial power and realizes checks and balances that align with democratic principles.
• It builds a mutual check system through separation of investigation and prosecution to increase fairness.
• It creates a system that can more effectively protect people's basic rights and human rights.
• It establishes a criminal justice system that meets international standards.

2️⃣ Main Content and Direction of Prosecution Reform

📕 Background and Need for Prosecution Reform

• There is a historical background for prosecution reform. The main background is as follows:

  • When drafting the Criminal Procedure Act in 1954, then Prosecutor General Han Gwang-man said, "It would be legally appropriate to leave investigation to the police and give prosecutors only prosecution power. However, this would only be possible after 100 years."
  • Due to distrust of police during Japanese colonial rule, prosecutors came to have not only prosecution power but also investigation power.
  • During military dictatorship, the prosecution served as a 'servant of the regime' and was used as a tool to suppress democracy.
  • Even after the launch of democratic governments, the prosecution pursued only organizational interests and strengthened privileges, showing an attitude of ruling over the people.

• There are problems with the current power held by the prosecution. The main problems are as follows:

  • The prosecution encompasses all powers including investigation, prosecution, trial maintenance, and sentence execution, leading to the term "fourth branch of government."
  • The existing prosecution had all powers: investigation initiation, investigation command, investigation conclusion, prosecution monopoly, and warrant request.
  • The prosecution can start investigations on its own, command police investigations, and decide on conclusion and prosecution for all investigation cases.
  • This concentration of power has become an oversized power that has escaped democratic control.

📕 Core Direction of Prosecution Reform

• Separation of investigation and prosecution powers is the key. The main content is as follows:

  • The goal is to improve the relationship between prosecution and police into a cooperative relationship, distribute investigation authority, and ensure mutual checks so that investigation power is exercised democratically and efficiently for the people.
  • Give police primary investigation authority and abolish prosecutors' pre-referral investigation command.
  • Limit the prosecution to direct investigation only for important crimes such as corruption.
  • Ultimately, the plan being considered is to completely separate investigation power from the prosecution and focus only on prosecution and trial maintenance functions.

• Strengthening internal checks and control systems within the prosecution is necessary. The main measures are as follows:

  • Ensure democratic control and internal transparency of the prosecution organization through swift completion of de-prosecutorization of the Ministry of Justice.
  • Establish transparent and fair case assignment and work distribution systems.
  • Prepare effective control measures for targeted investigations (selective investigations and separate case investigations).
  • Implement measures to eliminate special treatment for former prosecutors during the investigation stage.
  • Strengthen human rights protection of parties during the investigation process.

📕 International Standards and Comparison

• It is necessary to refer to investigation and prosecution systems of countries around the world. The international situation is as follows:

  • Globally, there are no cases like Korea's system that gives all investigation power to the prosecution. Major developed countries properly distribute investigation and prosecution powers to prevent concentration of authority and prevent the prosecution from becoming an all-powerful authority.
  • Continental law countries like Germany and France also have no internal investigation personnel in their prosecution offices and only control police investigations.
  • Among 35 OECD member countries, 27 countries stipulate prosecutors' investigation power in their constitution or laws, but most have police handle investigations and allow prosecution to directly investigate only in exceptional cases to check authority.

• There are Korea's special characteristics and directions for improvement. The main features are as follows:

  • Korea is unique in stipulating prosecutors' warrant application authority in its constitution.
  • German prosecution is called "head without hands," and Japan has established prosecution special departments that handle direct investigations only in three places: Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya.
  • In the United States, federal prosecutors sometimes directly investigate important crimes, but in such cases, FBI and other related agency personnel often handle the investigation work.
  • Korea also needs to reorganize into a system that properly distributes and checks prosecutorial authority according to these international standards.

Main Issues and Challenges of Prosecution Reform

1. Police Power Expansion: Concerns about lack of check mechanisms for police when investigation power is transferred to them
2. Investigation Expertise: Concerns about lack of expertise in investigating complex economic crimes or high-level official corruption
3. Political Neutrality: Concerns about potential political intervention in the reform process
4. Implementation Timing and Speed: Choice between radical reform and gradual reform
5. Public Consensus: Difficulty in forming national consensus on the need for reform

3️⃣ Progress and Current Status of Prosecution Reform

✅ Moon Jae-in Government's Prosecution Reform Push

• Systematic prosecution reform was pursued. The main process is as follows:

  • The Moon Jae-in government presented 'reform of power institutions of the people, by the people, for the people' as a national agenda to create a government owned by the people.
  • In August 2017, the first Justice and Prosecution Reform Committee was launched to create and recommend detailed prosecution reform plans for each task.
  • In September 2019, the Prosecution Reform Promotion Support Team was launched to select reform tasks, prepare reform plans, and support legislation.
  • In September 2019, the second Justice and Prosecution Reform Committee was formed to quickly prepare reform plans for the direction of justice and prosecution.

• Specific reform measures were implemented. The main measures are as follows:

  • The prosecution's special investigation department name was abolished and reduced, human rights protection investigation rules were established to improve investigation methods, and inspection of justice and prosecution was substantialized.
  • Measures were taken such as measures to eliminate special treatment for former prosecutors and establishment and implementation of regulations on criminal case disclosure prohibition.
  • Human rights and livelihood-centered prosecution organizational restructuring was carried out.
  • On January 13, 2020, the adjustment of investigation authority between prosecution and police was confirmed through amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act and Prosecutors' Office Act that passed the National Assembly plenary session.

✅ Recent Prosecution Reform Discussions and Issues

• Discussion of complete separation of investigation and prosecution powers is active. Recent trends are as follows:

  • The Democratic Party officially announced the promotion of second prosecution reform focused on separating prosecution investigation and prosecution powers. This is the promotion of "complete removal of prosecution investigation power" that was not achieved in the first adjustment of investigation authority between prosecution and police.
  • The prosecution reform special committee within the ruling party is pursuing related legislation to completely separate investigation and prosecution.
  • A Public Prosecution Office Act was proposed to change the prosecutor's office into a public prosecution office that handles only prosecution and trial maintenance.
  • Plans are being considered to take away even the prosecution's direct investigation authority that was maintained for six major crimes and transfer it to a separate investigation organization such as a "Major Crime Investigation Office" or "Special Investigation Office."

• Various positions exist regarding reform. The main issues are as follows:

  • Co-emergency committee chairperson Park Ji-hyun raised a cautious view, saying "The Justice Party officially opposed it and there are many diverse opinions within the party. Prosecution reform certainly needs to be done, but the method and timing need to be discussed more thoroughly."
  • Some point out that the bill is being pushed for political reasons in reaction to the election of a president from the prosecution.
  • Voices from within the prosecution are also asking, "Didn't we wrongly think we could freely enjoy the investigation power we have?"
  • Opinions are also being raised that discussion is needed on concerns about police power expansion and measures to secure investigation expertise.

4️⃣ Related Terms Explanation

🔎 Investigation Power

• Investigation power is the authority to investigate criminal facts and collect evidence.
• Investigation power means the authority of investigation agencies to investigate criminal facts, discover and secure criminals, and collect and preserve evidence as preparation for deciding whether to file charges and maintaining filed charges. Simply put, it is the authority to investigate when there are suspicions of crime.
• The main contents of investigation power include: First, investigation initiation power, which is the authority to start investigations. Second, investigation command power, which is the authority to command investigations by other investigation agencies. Third, investigation conclusion power, which is the authority to end investigations. Fourth, forced investigation power, which is the authority to conduct seizure and search, arrest, etc. through warrants.
• Currently in Korea, both prosecution and police have investigation power, but since prosecution can command police investigations, it can be seen that prosecution substantially monopolizes investigation power. Prosecution reform is being pursued in the direction of improving this monopolistic structure of investigation power by giving police independent investigation power and limiting or completely abolishing prosecution investigation power to important crimes.

🔎 Prosecution Power

• Prosecution power is the authority to request criminal trials from courts.
• Prosecution power means the authority for prosecutors to take action seeking court judgment on criminal cases. Simply put, it is the authority to send people suspected of crimes to court for trial. Korea adopts "prosecution monopolism" where only prosecutors can exercise prosecution power.
• The main characteristics of prosecution power include: First, only prosecutors can prosecute, so other agencies or individuals cannot directly prosecute. Second, prosecutors have prosecutorial discretion to freely decide whether to prosecute. Third, they have the duty to maintain prosecution for prosecuted cases and bear the burden of proving guilt in court.
• Unlike investigation power, prosecution power is still being discussed as something that prosecution will monopolize even during prosecution reform. However, measures are being considered to strengthen control mechanisms for prosecutors' discretion in prosecution and non-prosecution decisions and increase transparency and fairness in exercising prosecution power through citizen participation trials or jury systems. If investigation and prosecution powers are separated, investigation and prosecution agencies will check each other, which is expected to build a fairer criminal justice system.

🔎 CIO (Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials)

• CIO is an independent investigation agency specializing in corruption crimes of high-ranking officials.
• CIO (Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials) means an independent investigation agency that specializes in investigating and prosecuting corruption crimes of high-ranking officials such as the president, National Assembly members, judges, prosecutors, and minister-level public officials. It was established to overcome the limitations and bias shown by existing prosecution in investigating high-ranking officials.
• The main characteristics of CIO include: First, even the president is included as an investigation target, so it can investigate up to the highest level of power. Second, it is independent from the prosecution, so it can investigate without being influenced by the prosecution. Third, it has both investigation and prosecution authority, enabling complete investigations. Fourth, it is composed of a slim organization (within 25 prosecutors, within 40 investigators).
• CIO serves as a check mechanism for high-ranking officials as one axis of prosecution reform. However, there were controversies related to personnel authority during the establishment process, and problems such as investigation targets and scope, jurisdictional disputes with other agencies have been raised during actual operation. For CIO to truly function as a check mechanism, securing political independence and strengthening expertise are necessary.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Won't there be problems with crime investigation if prosecution reform is implemented?

A: This is one of the most common concerns about prosecution reform. However, the purpose of prosecution reform is not to weaken investigation functions but to create a fairer and more efficient investigation system. If investigation and prosecution powers are separated, the quality of investigations can actually improve through mutual checks. Investigation agencies will investigate more thoroughly to pass the strict review of prosecution agencies, and prosecution agencies will objectively evaluate materials submitted by investigation agencies to decide whether to prosecute. However, institutional supplements are needed to secure police investigation expertise and strengthen capacity for investigating complex economic crimes or high-level official corruption. Also, investigation gaps must be prevented through building cooperation systems between investigation agencies and improving information sharing systems. In fact, other countries with separated investigation and prosecution powers also conduct effective crime investigations, and rather realize fairer judicial justice through checks and balances between power agencies.

Q: Isn't prosecution reform being pushed for political purposes?

A: While there is political controversy surrounding prosecution reform, the need for reform itself is a structural problem that has been raised for a long time regardless of political orientation. The need to separate investigation and prosecution powers has been raised since the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Act in 1954, and prosecution reform has been continuously discussed in successive governments. What's important is not the motivation for reform but whether the content and direction of reform are for the people. Problems such as excessive power held by the prosecution and resulting human rights violations and damage to political neutrality are actual structural problems. Therefore, even if political considerations intervene in the reform process, it should ultimately be faithful to the original purpose of protecting people's human rights and realizing judicial justice. Also, reform should be pursued through transparent and democratic procedures so that it serves the interests of all people, not specific political forces. Above all, it should be evaluated based on whether the results of reform contribute to guaranteeing people's basic rights and strengthening the rule of law.