Prosecutorial reform must honor its original purpose

President Lee Jae-myung said at a New Year’s press conference on Jan. 21 that the core of prosecutorial reform is not about stripping power from prosecutors. He emphasized that the ultimate goal is to protect citizens’ rights and uphold human rights. Lee criticized prosecutors for behaving like “witches” by fabricating or concealing charges, adding that the public has come to say, “Prosecutors should not do anything at all.” He described this as a consequence prosecutors brought upon themselves. Despite the criticism, his remarks highlighted his insistence that the original purpose of prosecutorial reform must not be compromised.

Hard-liners within the ruling Democratic Party of Korea and some legal experts have strongly opposed government bills to establish a Public Prosecution Office and a Serious Crimes Investigation Office. They argue the new body could become a second prosecution service. Critics note plans to divide staff into legally trained investigative judicial officers and nonlawyer professional investigators, as well as to designate the head of the Public Prosecution Office as the prosecutor general. They say these measures would make the system little different from the current prosecution service. Meanwhile, debate is intensifying over whether prosecutors at the Public Prosecution Office should be granted supplementary investigation powers in future revisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The prosecution lost public trust by holding both investigative and prosecutorial powers while repeatedly conducting lenient inquiries into those in power and targeted investigations against political opponents. As a result, the prosecution service is set to close after 78 years. Still, some figures within the ruling camp argue that dismantling the service is not enough and that the authority of both the Public Prosecution Office and the Serious Crimes Investigation Office should also be limited. They caution that, as the Yoon Suk Yeol administration expanded prosecutorial investigative powers through enforcement decrees after the so-called complete separation of investigation and prosecution law took effect, the new agencies could similarly seek to broaden their authority whenever an opportunity arises.

However, if prosecutors’ investigative expertise in major corruption cases, drug crimes, and advanced offenses involving cyber and financial sectors is not transferred to the Public Prosecution Office, the state’s overall capacity to respond to crime would inevitably be weakened. The question of granting supplementary investigation powers to prosecutors at the new office should also be evaluated with an eye on the integrity and completeness of the criminal justice system. President Lee said it would be “efficient to block the possibility of abuse and put safeguards in place, then allow it only on an exceptional basis.” His remarks warrant careful consideration by the ruling party. Authorities must ensure that perpetrators are not able to evade proper punishment due to inadequate police or Serious Crimes Investigation Office investigations, and that prosecutions remain thorough and complete.