[Reporter’s Notebook] Complainants Who Cannot Say "Police, I Object"

Mr. A recently reported the business owner of a waste disposal factory near his home to the police for violating the Waste Management Act after a pungent odor emanated from the area. The police investigated the factory, concluded there was no evidence, and closed the case without forwarding it to the prosecution. However, the foul smell persisted, and when Mr. A, unable to endure it any longer, went to the police station to file an objection, he was told that "the complainant cannot file an objection" and had to leave empty-handed.

Let’s go back three years. The Democratic Party of Korea, while pushing for adjustments to the investigative authority between prosecutors and police, amended the Criminal Procedure Act to require that if a person notified by the police of a non-prosecution decision files an objection, the case must be promptly forwarded to the prosecutor. Two years later, last year, the Democratic Party again amended the Criminal Procedure Act, excluding the ‘complainant’ from the subjects allowed to file objections against the police’s non-prosecution decisions.

This gave birth to a law that effectively permits a ‘single-instance system,’ allowing cases to be closed based solely on the police’s initial judgment, despite the impossibility of flawless and perfect investigations.

Regarding this difficult-to-accept law, five out of nine Constitutional Court justices refrained from making any judgment. They focused solely on the legality of the lawsuit without ruling on the law itself.

On the other hand, four justices expressed concerns about potential blind spots, stating that excluding the complainant’s right to object significantly undermines the effectiveness of investigations and hampers the fair handling of cases that protect national and social legal interests. However, this was recorded only as a dissenting opinion.

The bigger problem is that there is no clear solution to the possibility that the truth may be buried within investigative agencies. Ultimately, unless the ruling and opposition parties agree to amend the law or the Constitutional Court issues a ruling of unconstitutionality or constitutional inconsistency through constitutional review or constitutional complaints, complainants will continue to experience a ‘one-judge trial’ where their fate is decided by a single police decision.