🚨 Supplementary Investigation Rights

Today Korean Social News for Beginners | 2025.09.08

0️⃣ Prosecutor Investigation Authority Abolition Controversy and Judicial System Changes

📌 Prosecutors Fight to Keep Supplementary Investigation Rights...Concerns About Investigation Delays and Trial Problems

💬 The government announced a government organization law revision plan that includes abolishing the prosecutor's office, making the existence of prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights a key issue. Prosecutors argue that even if they give up direct investigation functions, supplementary investigation rights are absolutely necessary. After the investigation authority adjustment, average case processing time has increased by more than double. If supplementary investigation rights disappear too, there are concerns that case "ping-pong" delays, poor investigation of detention cases, and gaps in judicial control could worsen. Especially in the appeals process for non-referral cases, prosecutors' roles would decrease, blocking ways to correct wrong investigation conclusions.

💡 Summary

• Supplementary investigation rights allow prosecutors to directly supplement or request additional investigation when police investigations are insufficient.
• As the government discusses abolishing the prosecutor's office through organization law revision, the existence of supplementary investigation rights has become a key issue.
• If abolished, problems like investigation delays, trial disruptions, and gaps in judicial control are expected.

1️⃣ Definition

Supplementary investigation rights means the authority for prosecutors to conduct direct supplementary investigation or request additional investigation from police when they judge that police investigations are insufficient or incomplete. This is not simply an auxiliary means for prosecution, but an important system that enables evidence gathering, maintaining public prosecution, and checks and balances between police and prosecutors.

After the 2021 investigation authority adjustment gave police primary investigation rights, prosecutors have maintained fairness and efficiency in investigations through supplementary investigation rights. This authority serves as a safety device that fills gaps in police investigations and corrects wrong investigation conclusions.

💡 Why is this important?

• It supplements shortcomings in police investigations to improve investigation completeness.
• It allows prosecutors to maintain public prosecution with sufficient evidence in trials after indictment.
• It realizes judicial justice through checks and balances between police and prosecutors.
• It is an essential device for protecting victims' and citizens' rights.

2️⃣ Current Situation and Role of Supplementary Investigation Rights

📕 Changed Investigation System After Authority Adjustment

• The system shifted to a police-centered investigation structure. Main changes include:

  • Since 2021, police have primary investigation authority and handle most cases.
  • Prosecutors' direct investigation scope was greatly reduced to major crimes involving high-ranking officials.
  • General criminal cases follow a structure where police complete investigations then refer to prosecutors.
  • Prosecutors changed to a role of only deciding whether to prosecute cases they receive.

• Case processing time has greatly increased. Main problems include:

  • Average case processing time increased by more than double compared to before authority adjustment.
  • "Ping-pong" phenomena frequently occur due to disagreements between police and prosecutors.
  • For detention cases, concerns about human rights violations due to processing delays are growing.
  • Side effects of prolonged suffering for victims and families are appearing.

📕 Practical Functions of Supplementary Investigation Rights

• They fill gaps in police investigations. Main functions include:

  • They can additionally secure important evidence or witnesses that police missed.
  • They provide professional legal review in cases with complex legal issues.
  • They clarify facts through additional investigation of suspects and victims.
  • They can secure reinforcing evidence needed during trial processes after indictment.

• They perform judicial control and check functions. Main roles include:

  • They can correct wrong investigation directions or conclusions by police.
  • They enable re-investigation when processing appeals for non-referral cases.
  • They prevent and correct human rights violations that may occur during investigations.
  • They contribute to maintaining consistency and fairness in law enforcement.

💡 Expected Problems if Supplementary Investigation Rights are Abolished

1. Declining Investigation Quality: Loss of means to supplement shortcomings in police investigations
2. Trial Disruptions: Possible increase in acquittals due to weakened prosecutor ability to maintain prosecution
3. Judicial Control Gap: Blocking methods to correct wrong investigation conclusions
4. Victim Rights Violations: Loss of effectiveness in appeals for non-referral cases
5. Case Processing Delays: Weakened coordination mechanisms between police and prosecutors

3️⃣ Abolition Discussion and Expected Impact

✅ Government's Prosecutor Reform Direction

• Abolition of prosecutor's office and functional reorganization is being pursued. Main plans include:

  • A plan to abolish the current prosecutor's office through government organization law revision is being reviewed.
  • They want to leave only prosecution and public prosecution maintenance functions while completely separating investigation functions.
  • Establishing new organizational forms like "Prosecution Office" or "Public Prosecution Office" is being discussed.
  • This appears intended to greatly reduce prosecutors' authority and weaken judicial checks and balances.

• Pro and con arguments about abolishing supplementary investigation rights are conflicting. Main positions include:

  • The government side argues for complete separation of investigation and prosecution functions for power checks.
  • Prosecutors counter that supplementary investigation rights are essential for maintaining prosecution and realizing judicial justice.
  • The legal community worries about negative effects that hasty system changes could have on the entire judicial system.
  • Civil society demands careful approach considering investigation efficiency and victim rights protection.

✅ Specific Expected Problems if Abolished

• Serious disruptions are expected in trial processes. Main concerns include:

  • Prosecutors would have to proceed with trials only with referral records, making it difficult to prove charges.
  • Even if new evidence is needed during trials, prosecutors cannot directly secure it.
  • Witness investigations and additional evaluations would be limited, weakening substantial truth-finding.
  • As a result, acquittals could increase, creating gaps in criminal punishment.

• Victim relief and judicial access rights would be limited. Main problems include:

  • Appeals against police non-referral decisions could become mere formalities.
  • Even if victims request additional investigation, prosecutors would have no means to perform it.
  • Investigation quality could decline in complex economic cases or specialized crime cases.
  • Judicial access rights of socially vulnerable people could be further limited.

4️⃣ Related Term Explanations

🔎 Investigation Authority Adjustment

• Investigation authority adjustment is a system reform that redistributed investigation powers between police and prosecutors.
  • Investigation authority adjustment refers to reforms implemented from January 2021 that transferred primary investigation authority previously held by prosecutors to police and abolished prosecutors' investigation command authority. This established a role-sharing system of "police investigate, prosecutors prosecute."
  • Main changes include: First, police gained primary investigation authority for most criminal cases. Second, prosecutors' direct investigation scope was limited to major crimes involving high-ranking officials. Third, prosecutors' police investigation command authority was abolished and investigation conclusion authority was transferred to police. Fourth, prosecutors came to focus on prosecution decisions and maintaining public prosecution.
  • After implementing this system, supplementary investigation rights became almost the only means for prosecutors to supplement shortcomings in police investigations. Therefore, abolishing supplementary investigation rights is seen as a completion stage of investigation authority adjustment, but also evaluated as a dangerous measure that could break the balance of the judicial system.

🔎 Non-Referral Decision

• Non-referral decision is a disposition where police decide not to send cases to prosecutors after completing investigation.
  • Non-referral decision refers to a disposition where police decide not to refer cases to prosecutors after completing investigation due to reasons like no charges, no prosecution authority, reference person treatment, or transfer to other agencies. This is one of the important authorities police can independently exercise after investigation authority adjustment.
  • Types of non-referral decisions include: First, no charges when cases don't meet crime requirements or evidence is insufficient. Second, no prosecution authority for cases like completed statute of limitations or suspect death. Third, reference person treatment when investigated only as a reference person, not suspect. Fourth, transfer to other agencies when sent to other investigation agencies or administrative agencies.
  • Complainants who object to non-referral decisions can appeal to prosecutors, and prosecutors can re-examine cases through applications for judicial review. However, if supplementary investigation rights are abolished, prosecutors cannot conduct direct additional investigation, greatly reducing the effectiveness of the appeal system.

🔎 Maintaining Public Prosecution

• Maintaining public prosecution means prosecutors' activities to prove guilt in trials for cases they indicted.
  • Maintaining public prosecution refers to activities where prosecutors present evidence and develop logic in court to prove charges during trial processes after indicting defendants. This is one of prosecutors' core functions along with prosecution authority, essential for realizing judicial justice.
  • Content of public prosecution maintenance activities includes: First, submitting evidence to courts and disputing evidence admissibility. Second, clarifying facts through witness examinations. Third, refuting claims by defendants and defense attorneys. Fourth, presenting sentencing opinions to demand appropriate punishment.
  • Supplementary investigation rights are important means for prosecutors to secure new evidence or conduct additional investigation when needed during public prosecution maintenance. If this authority disappears, prosecutors must face trials only with evidence from the time of referral, so their ability to maintain public prosecution could be significantly weakened.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: If supplementary investigation rights are abolished, what work would prosecutors only do?

A: They would only handle prosecution decisions and maintaining public prosecution in court.

• If supplementary investigation rights are abolished, prosecutors' roles would change very limitedly. First, they would be reduced to only making prosecution or non-prosecution decisions for cases police refer. Second, for indicted cases, they would handle maintaining public prosecution in trials. Third, even if new evidence is needed during trials, they cannot directly secure it and can only argue in court. Fourth, even if they judge police investigations as insufficient or wrong, they cannot directly supplement them.
• This risks reducing prosecutors' roles to simple "prosecution machines." If the ability to review legal issues in complex cases or secure additional evidence disappears, gaps could emerge in criminal punishment and victim relief.

Q: How do other countries operate prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights?

A: Most developed countries have prosecutors holding both investigation and prosecution authorities together.

• Looking at prosecutor systems in various countries, cases like Korea that completely separate investigation and prosecution are very rare. First, in the US, Federal Prosecutors command agencies like the FBI while also conducting direct investigations. Second, Germany has prosecutors commanding police with authority to directly investigate. Third, France has prosecutors holding strong investigation authority along with examining magistrate systems. Fourth, Japan also has prosecutors holding both independent investigation authority and police command authority.
• This is based on international experience that effective crime investigation and prosecution maintenance require organic connection between investigation and prosecution. Korea's investigation authority adjustment and supplementary investigation rights abolition discussion are evaluated as going against global trends.

Q: How would abolishing supplementary investigation rights affect ordinary citizens?

A: Crime victim relief and overall judicial service quality would likely decline.

• Abolishing supplementary investigation rights could cause several problems directly connected to ordinary citizens' daily lives. First, case processing time could become even longer, prolonging suffering of victims and families. Second, even with complaints about police investigations, means to supplement them would disappear, increasing possibilities of unfair treatment. Third, investigation quality could decline in complex economic cases or specialized crimes, allowing perpetrators to escape punishment. Fourth, if acquittals increase in trials, crime prevention effects would weaken.
• Especially socially vulnerable people and ordinary citizens could suffer greater damage. When there's no capacity to hire lawyers, means to object to poor investigations would virtually disappear. As a result, serious gaps could emerge in judicial justice and protection of citizens' basic rights.

Table of Contents

• Go to Guide