Attorney Yeawon Kim: "If the Prosecution Office Is Abolished, Victims Without Money Will Struggle Even to File Objections with the Police" [Choi Seokjin's Law&Biz]

If It Is Not a Major Case, Investigations Will Likely Be Delayed
Creating New Agencies Does Not Automatically Enhance Response Capabilities
Police Should Lose the Authority to Close Investigations; All Cases Must Be Referred to the Prosecution

Yeawon Kim, Director of the Center for Disability Rights (Attorney).

There is one person who has been the most vocal in opposing the Democratic Party's four prosecution reform bills: Attorney Yeawon Kim, Director of the Center for Disability Rights.

Having lost vision in one eye due to two separate medical accidents, including complications during childbirth, she has provided free legal support for over a decade to vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities, children, and women who have been victims of crime.

With more experience than anyone else in investigations and court proceedings, she warned in 2022-when the Democratic Party was pushing for legislation to completely strip the prosecution of its investigative powers-that they would "face the judgment of history."

We asked Attorney Kim about her reasons for opposing these bills and her views on the proper direction for prosecution reform.

The following is a Q&A with Attorney Kim.

-What is the reason for your strong opposition, using expressions such as "national collapse law" and "the gates of hell will open"?

▲I am sorry for making many people uncomfortable with such strong language, but I have no other choice. If these bills pass, it is clear that vulnerable crime victims who lack information and resources will suffer greatly. I have closely examined more than 1,000 criminal cases from the initial consultation to the final verdict and have witnessed firsthand how investigative and trial practices have changed in detail. I am also registered as a criminal law specialist with the Korean Bar Association. Not only myself, but also other practitioners handling criminal cases unanimously say that this is not reform. I desperately hope that at least one person will pay attention to how much harm this will cause ordinary citizens, which is why I keep using more intuitive and easily understandable expressions.

-What is your greatest concern if the prosecution office is abolished and new investigation and prosecution agencies are created, separating investigation and indictment?

▲The main concern is that while authority becomes stronger, accountability becomes unclear. Some may think that having more investigative agencies will ensure smoother investigations when incidents occur, but this is a fantasy that ignores how workplaces actually operate. For major cases that attract public attention, agencies may compete to investigate, but for ordinary people's minor cases, they are more likely to be ignored or passed on to other agencies. And you cannot clearly divide criminal cases into "serious" and "not serious." As everyone saw with the establishment of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, simply creating a new agency does not automatically enhance crime response capabilities.

-As someone who has long supported vulnerable criminal victims, what alternatives would you suggest for proper prosecution reform?

▲These bills are being promoted under appealing catchphrases such as "separation of investigation and indictment" or "dismantling political prosecution," which anyone could agree with on the surface. However, the core of the actual legislation is to eliminate as much legal oversight as possible over primary investigative agencies. The prosecution was established to provide "investigative oversight"-to allow legal experts to correct and supplement illegalities or deficiencies in investigations by the police and other primary agencies before indictment. If we stay true to the essence of the system, the alternatives are not complicated.

Practitioners in criminal cases are unanimously suggesting the following alternatives. First, abolish the prosecution’s special investigation division (which has the authority to initiate direct investigations) to achieve a complete separation of investigation and indictment. Second, primary investigative agencies should not have the authority to unilaterally close investigations (abolish the right to conclude investigations) and should refer all cases to the prosecution (full referral of cases). Third, the prosecution should stop flexing its power and, as legal experts, thoroughly review all referred cases from the beginning, remove illegalities, and supplement insufficient investigations to ensure proper indictments. This would make the process easier for the public to understand, eliminate the evasion of responsibility between agencies, and, most importantly, prevent astronomical waste of taxpayer money on the creation of new agencies.

-You recently shared a column representing the police perspective on Facebook, commenting, "It became clear that these bills were drafted by people who have never actually conducted investigations and simply want to abolish the prosecution." Why do you feel this way?

▲The police claim that even if these bills pass, investigative oversight over primary agencies will not be weakened, but this is simply not true. Lawmakers need to recognize this clearly. If the bills pass, first, the prosecution will not be able to review cases that the police decide to close without indictment. They will not even know what cases existed. If someone wants to challenge a police decision not to refer a case, they must file an objection at their own expense, and even that is limited. When all cases were referred to the prosecution, free legal services were available to the public, but now, the process will require hundreds of thousands of won in objection fees and success fees for referrals.

Second, even if the police refer a case believing there is sufficient evidence, if the investigation is inadequate or illegal, the prosecution cannot correct or supplement it before indictment. All they can do is ask the police to reinvestigate or request disciplinary action against the investigator. This eliminates substantive oversight, leaving only an ineffective shell. What victims want is not disciplinary action against the investigator, but for the perpetrator to be properly punished. Blocking all avenues for the prosecution to exercise investigative oversight while insisting that "investigative oversight remains" is like trying to cover the sky with your palm.

-On a recent current affairs radio program, these bills were described as "prosecution sweet deal bills rather than prosecution reform bills." Is this a similar argument? If the bills are so problematic, why are bar associations so quiet?

▲While reviewing all eight bills to testify at the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee hearing, what struck me was how contradictory they are. The bills claim to reform the prosecution because it is problematic, but in reality, they make things much easier and more comfortable for the prosecution. If these bills pass, the prosecution’s workload will be reduced to 20-30% of current levels, yet prosecutors will continue to receive their full salaries until retirement. Even if primary investigations are inadequate, prosecutors can simply not indict, and if they do indict and the defendant is acquitted, it will be difficult to hold the prosecution accountable. Is it right to let 2,000 government-employed legal experts, trained with taxpayers’ money and working across the country, live so comfortably?

From a lawyer’s perspective, these bills are not disadvantageous at all-they open up enormous business opportunities. It is no coincidence that in recent years, many senior police officers without law licenses have been hired as advisors at law firms with annual salaries in the hundreds of millions of won. Moreover, as investigative agencies proliferate and investigation practices differ by agency, legal fees can be charged for each procedure. This is why ordinary people, who cannot afford such costs and time, need to pay attention to these bills. Anyone can become a victim of crime.