National Innovation Party: “Government’s Public Prosecution Office and Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Bills Deviate from the Essence of Prosecutorial Reform”

On January 13, the National Innovation Party criticized the government’s recently released bills on the establishment of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Office, calling them a “prosecutorial reform show.”

Jo Wangjin, floor leader of the National Innovation Party, along with lawmakers and party officials, held a press conference on the 13th at the National Assembly Communication Office regarding the controversy over the establishment of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Office. Photo by Yonhap News

Lawmakers of the Innovation Party, including Cha Kyugeun, Hwang Unha, and Shin Jangshik, held a press conference at the National Assembly Communication Office that morning, stating, “The Public Prosecution Office Act and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Act, which the government announced for legislative notice yesterday, deviate from the essence of prosecutorial reform. They merely pretend to separate investigation and prosecution, but in reality, these are camouflage tactics intended to cleverly extend the prosecution’s vested interests.” They demanded a fundamental review of the so-called “Second Prosecution Office Act.”

They pointed out, “The Public Prosecution Office Act is just a sleight of hand, simply renaming the existing Prosecution Office Act.”

They further argued, “The Public Prosecution Office Act deletes the term ‘investigation’ while hiding investigative authority in the Criminal Procedure Act. The fundamental investigative power of prosecutors remains alive in Article 196 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Unless this provision is deleted, prosecutors can always wield the investigative blade under the pretext of ‘matters falling under their authority according to other statutes,’ as specified in the Public Prosecution Office Act.”

They continued, “It is clear that separating investigation and prosecution without amending the Criminal Procedure Act is merely superficial. Nevertheless, the government has yet to present a clear stance on the disclosure of its plans to revise the Criminal Procedure Act or on the legislative timeline. If there are groups attempting to drag out prosecutorial reform and render it toothless ahead of the local elections, the public will never stand idly by.”

They also stated, “The Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Act is essentially a ‘Second Prosecution Office Act.’ The plan to divide the organization into judicial investigators and professional investigators is an even bigger problem. Transferring the existing prosecution’s investigative departments directly to the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency raises suspicions that the direct investigative function of the prosecution is only being temporarily entrusted, with the intention of reintegrating it with the Public Prosecution Office depending on future political circumstances.”

They added, “While it is necessary for the Minister of the Interior and Safety to have investigative command authority, legal legitimacy must first be secured under the Government Organization Act.” They stated, “For the Minister of the Interior and Safety to exercise investigative command over the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, additional provisions regarding the Minister’s duties must be included in the Government Organization Act.”