[Reporter’s Notebook] The Courage To Be Checked: A Question Investigative Bodies Must Answer

Prosecution once again touts its supplementary investigation results, just like five years ago
Stressing control over the police while avoiding checks on itself
For the police to differ from the prosecution, accountable investigations and oversight are essential

"Here we go again." A police officer let out a sigh as he read an article about the prosecution's achievements in supplementary investigations. He soon retorted, "Isn't the separation of investigation and indictment being pursued not because the prosecution is incapable of investigating?"

Recently, the prosecution has been repeatedly distributing press releases highlighting the results of its supplementary investigations. They mainly point out shortcomings in police investigations and then go on to explain just how well the prosecution has "fixed" them. Back in 2021, when the term "complete deprivation of the prosecution's investigative powers" (known as "Prosecution Investigation Stripping") first emerged, the prosecution responded in much the same way. The rhetoric suggesting that, without the power to conduct supplementary investigations, a flood of victims suffering grave injustice would immediately follow is no different from what we heard then.

Listening to both the police and the prosecution, this conflict appears to date back to 1954, when the Criminal Procedure Act was enacted. The law defines investigations by prosecutors and police officers and ends with the wording "shall investigate" or "must investigate." It presupposes investigation as a duty that must be carried out, not something that may or may not be done at their discretion. Against this backdrop, the prosecution's attempt to prove its own raison d'etre by needlessly disparaging the police is hard to find convincing.

The core that upholds investigation as a duty is "checks and balances." Because investigative powers can restrict citizens' fundamental rights, there is always a significant risk of abuse, regardless of which institution wields them. In our legal system, the "principle of warrant application via the prosecutor" was introduced through an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act shortly after the May 16 military coup. Following a constitutional amendment the next year, the power to request warrants was limited exclusively to prosecutors. While the prosecution used this monopoly to control the police, it also drifted further away from being subject to checks itself.

The debate over the power to conduct supplementary investigations should not be about whether such authority survives or disappears, but about how to redesign the framework of responsibility and oversight surrounding the exercise of investigative power. If the power to conduct supplementary investigations is to be stripped from the prosecution, we must be prepared to answer who will keep the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and the police in check, and how the relationship between the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and the National Police Agency will maintain a proper balance. If the power to conduct supplementary investigations is retained, its scope and conditions must be strictly and narrowly defined.

This is a case a junior reporter recently covered. An elderly man was indicted while driving a rental car after leaving his own vehicle for repairs. He did not know that a disability tag needed to be reissued for each individual vehicle. He was a national merit recipient who had acquired his disability while in combat. The court acquitted him, but the prosecution appealed. During this same period, the prosecution chose not to appeal in the high-profile Daejang-dong development corruption case. The prosecution is right to say that the police must be kept in check. Nevertheless, the political sphere is able to stoke hard-line public sentiment calling for the "abolition of the prosecution" because the prosecution, which has only belatedly begun to portray itself as a guardian of human rights, lacks the moral and logical grounds to back that claim.

Authority derives its legitimacy from being subject to checks. Before arguing over which powers they can secure for themselves, investigative bodies should first show the courage to be held in check. Without the ability to correct themselves from within, they will merely repeat the prosecution's history.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.