[Law & Story] Who Is the Abolition of the Prosecutors' Office For?

Ruling Party Vows to Abolish Prosecutors' Office Before Chuseok
Previous Reforms Failed, Causing Widespread Side Effects
Urgent Need to Supplement Existing System Rather Than Dismantle

Seokjin Choi Lawnbiz Specialist

Jeong Cheongrae and Park Chandae, both lawmakers running for the leadership of the Democratic Party of Korea, have declared in unison that they will abolish the Prosecutors' Office before Chuseok in October. They have pledged to eliminate an investigative agency that has existed for 77 years within just three months.

Jung Sungho, the party’s nominee for Minister of Justice, has tried to rein in the rhetoric, saying that “dismantling the prosecution organization” is an inappropriate expression. However, considering the legislative blitz previously demonstrated by the hardliners in the Democratic Party, it is not an impossible scenario.

Already, a bill to abolish the Prosecutors' Office and establish a Public Prosecution Office and a Serious Crimes Investigation Agency has been introduced in the National Assembly. President Lee Jaemyung also stated at a press conference on the 3rd that the framework for separating investigation and prosecution could be established before Chuseok, adding, “It depends on the National Assembly’s decision.”

A former senior prosecutor who observed the recent appointments of chief prosecutors remarked, “This administration seems to do things you’d never expect without hesitation.” The reason is clear: the Democratic Party can pass legislation alone without the cooperation of opposition parties, and now, with no presidential veto expected, if the party makes it an official position and pushes forward, there is no way to stop it.

The real issue is whether abolishing the Prosecutors' Office and separating investigation and prosecution?assigning investigations previously handled by prosecutors to a Serious Crimes Investigation Agency under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, which would have no prosecutors, and limiting prosecutors to indictment and maintaining prosecution at the Public Prosecution Office?will actually help in fighting crime and benefit the public. Before even considering this, what must come first is an objective evaluation of the series of prosecutorial reforms promoted by the Democratic Party.

Prosecutorial reforms that began under the Moon Jaein administration have drastically reduced prosecutors’ investigative powers, while the police have been granted the authority to independently investigate all crimes. However, as cases have suddenly flooded the police, investigation periods have become noticeably longer. As investigations have been delayed, crime has increased, but the number of indictments has actually decreased.

With the abolition of prosecutors’ authority to direct investigations and the police now able to close cases on their own, the lines of responsibility for investigations have become blurred. Prosecutors no longer need to, nor can they, supervise how the police handle cases. It is also a well-known fact that the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIH), ambitiously established, has failed to achieve any meaningful results even after four years since its founding.

Given this situation, is the plan to create yet another investigative agency only going to add to the confusion? What is urgently needed now is not the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office, but rather to supplement and revise the current system to address the various side effects of the previous reforms.

This is not to say that there have been no problems with the conduct of prosecutors. In particular, the cowardly response of the prosecution in the case involving First Lady Kim Keonhee has erased even the last remaining expectations for the prosecution. However, the prosecution was fundamentally established to protect the public from crime and to safeguard the rights of suspects under police investigation. It is indeed questionable whether a system in which the body responsible for indictments cannot verify facts through its own investigations can be effective.

The Democratic Party cites “politically motivated targeted investigations” as the reason for dismantling the prosecution. In fact, several high-profile figures from the progressive camp, including former Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook, former Unified Progressive Party lawmaker Lee Seokki, former South Gyeongsang Governor Kim Kyungsoo, former Justice Minister Cho Kuk, former Democratic Party leader Song Younggil, and even President Lee, have been investigated by the prosecution.

However, among these cases, which the Democratic Party has criticized as targeted investigations, how many have ultimately resulted in findings of no charges or acquittals? And how many of these cases were initiated by the prosecution on its own, without any complaints or accusations being filed?

There is concern that the dismantling of the prosecution, led by hardliners within the Democratic Party, will end up as yet another failed policy rather than a successful achievement.