Government Repeatedly Seeks Prosecution's Cooperation, Contradicting Stance on Investigative Powers

Since the launch of the Lee Jae-myung administration, the prosecution has been involved in operating joint investigation headquarters for cases involving drugs and political corruption, and recently participated in clarifying the truth behind the shortage of ballots in local elections. While the government maintains its stance on curtailing the prosecution's investigative authority, it is also utilizing the prosecution's expertise in resolving major cases.

As the abolition of the prosecution service is becoming a foregone conclusion and follow-up legislation to reduce prosecutors' powers is set to be announced soon, repeatedly requesting cooperation from the prosecution whenever major incidents occur runs counter to the direction the government has been pursuing.

Since the inauguration of the Lee Jae-myung administration, multiple joint investigative bodies have been established and are operating within the prosecution service. In July last year, a joint investigation team comprising prosecutors and police was formed at the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office to uncover the truth behind the Itaewon crowd crush. In November of the same year, a government-wide joint investigation headquarters for drug crimes was established at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, followed by a joint investigation department for voice phishing crimes at the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office in December. Since January of this year, a joint investigation headquarters for corruption involving politicians has been active at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office.

The joint investigation team for the Itaewon tragedy led to the indictment of former Yongsan Fire Station chief Choi Sung-beom, and the drug crime task force contributed to the crackdown on drug offenses by indicting Park Wang-yeol. These outcomes demonstrated the prosecution's investigative capabilities. There is anticipation that if the prosecution achieves results in the current ballot paper incident investigation, it could gain a favorable position, such as for the retention of its supplementary investigative powers.

A senior prosecutor at a district prosecutors' office remarked that this situation shows the government and ruling party ultimately trust the prosecution as a reliable investigative agency. However, there is also a view that the abolition of investigative powers remains a firm policy, and the achievements of joint task forces will not influence the retention of such powers. Another prosecutor commented that operating joint task forces while pushing for the abolition of investigative powers is a contradiction, suggesting the prosecution is likely to be reduced to an entity sought only for resolving specific cases. This perspective leads to the conclusion that it will only exacerbate the prosecution's staffing shortages and eventually follow the predetermined path toward the abolition of investigative powers.