“Whipping Contrivance” To Prevent Side Effects of Lifelong Prosecutor System

On November 18, in order to prevent the side effects of introducing the single salary step system and to eliminate the job-ranking system of the prosecutors, the Ministry of Justice has decided on driving forward the screening committee and carrying out the supervisory system on the prosecutors.

Once the single salary system becomes implemented, under which the prosecutors will get paid without any pressure of not being promoted, the job-ranking system, excluding the chief of prosecutors, will be changed into one based on job assignment. Regarding this system, many prosecutors have spoken up about their concerns of the downward equalization in the world of prosecutors, since there will be no difference between job classes and salary. According to this apprehension, the Ministry of Justice made sure that periodical examinations and intensification of internal inspections will be unavoidable in order to sort out problems such as delinquency and the peace-at-any-price principle, which can increase when the system starts.

The Ministry of Justice set the measure to check and monitor the supreme prosecutors’ right of inspection and yet leave its function of inspection untouched. It is construed that this measure had been designed to settle down the adverse criticism against the movement of shifting the prosecutors’ right of inspection to the Ministry of Justice.

On the other hand, in case of inspections, which will be the most important evidence for the screening committee, if the Ministry of Justice picks on the problems of the supreme prosecutors’ inspection, the Ministry can directly investigate the problem; it might be a big burden for the prosecutors.

The screening committee will carry out its function based not only on the data gathered from the inspection, but also from the categorical consideration based on the result of individual duty aptitude test and mutual evaluation test among the prosecutors. Excluding the prosecutors, participating in this committee will be the Ministry of Justice, Korean Federal Bar Association (KFBA), and the jurists.

However, if the clear criterion for the screening committee is not fully decided regarding the structure, rights of the committee, and its process of judgment, high-pitched dissenting voices might be stirred up against it. This system, which is currently on the way to introduction, is not the “Absolute Assessment” that can kick out the problematic prosecutors directly, but is highly expected to be able to pick out one or two problematic prosecutors who stand out conspicuously among the others. There are complaints pointing out the possibility of it being titular. In the case of the court which introduced this system in 1988, there have been only three judges who have dropped out after being appointed.

The prosecutors have not kicked up a fuss about the system. But, there are many prosecutors who are anxious about the conflicts between the ministry and the prosecutors over how the inspection will be carried through.

Sang-Rok Lee myzodan@donga.com