Rep. Han Bong-doo Pushes for Complete Abolition of Prosecutorial Right to Supplementary Investigation via Criminal Procedure Act Amendment

Background of the Push to Completely Abolish Prosecutorial Right to Supplementary Investigation

The political sphere is moving forward with the proposal of a Criminal Procedure Act amendment that significantly restricts the powers of investigative agencies. Rep. Han Bong-doo announced plans to introduce an amendment this week that calls for the complete abolition of the "supplementary investigation right"—the authority that allows police to conclude cases. Until now, police could conduct necessary additional investigations directly even after referring a case to the prosecution. However, if the amendment passes, police will be required to fully conclude investigations before the indictment stage. This measure is interpreted as a move to clarify responsibility for investigations and strengthen the prosecution's monopoly on indictment authority.

This legislative attempt is a measure to resolve ongoing conflicts over work and controversies regarding evasion of responsibility that have persisted since the adjustment of investigation powers between the prosecution and the police. Since the 2020 adjustment of investigation powers, there has been constant friction between the prosecution and the police regarding the police's independent authority to conclude investigations. In particular, criticism arose that the prosecutor's exercise of the supplementary investigation right—where the prosecution sends a case back to the police citing insufficient results—served as a tool for institutional excuse-making. Ultimately, a bill that modifies the fundamentals of the current system has surfaced to increase the efficiency of investigative command and clearly separate the roles of both agencies.

Key Provisions of the Bill and Impact on the Judicial System

The core of the proposed Criminal Procedure Act amendment is clear. It completely removes the current authority of prosecutors to request additional investigations from the police before indicting a suspect. Consequently, the police will be legally obligated to thoroughly uncover all evidence and facts during the initial investigation stage. By stipulating that the police cannot, in principle, be involved once a case is transferred to the prosecution, the reform aims to prevent overlapping investigations and strengthen the prosecutor's judgment in deciding whether to indict.

If the system is implemented, the resource allocation across the entire judicial system is expected to change significantly. The police will face the burden of concentrating manpower and budget to improve the completeness of initial investigations. Conversely, the prosecution will take on a more distinct character as a reviewing body that simply assesses police investigation results and refers cases to trial. This could lead to positive outcomes by reinforcing the rule of law's principle of complete separation of investigation and prosecution. However, there are also concerns about side effects, such as trial delays and increased unnecessary court costs resulting from cases being transferred to the prosecution without sufficient evidence.

Debate within Legal and Political Circles

The proposed amendment has sparked sharp conflicts of opinion within the legal community and political circles. Proponents argue that separating the roles of investigation and prosecution enhances the human rights of the people. Rep. Cheon Jae-sang of the People Power Party previously emphasized the importance of judgment based on law and principles rather than political retaliation regarding conflicts within the National Assembly or legal disputes. Based on this logic, proponents argue the bill is essential to prevent the concentration of investigative power and establish transparent judicial procedures.

However, voices of concern are also significant. Prosecutors and some legal experts point out that the overall quality of investigations could decline if the police's supplementary investigation right is abolished. There are worries that without the minimal safety net to supplement deficiencies in initial investigations, instances of crucial evidence being missing at the time of indictment could surge. Critics argue this could make it difficult to actually punish crimes, creating serious holes in the social safety net. Civic groups are also urging the preparation of thorough follow-up measures to address the side effects that may arise from the police's excessive burden in initial investigations.

Future Legislative Schedule and Outlook

Full deliberation on the bill is expected to begin, centered on the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee. Following Rep. Han Bong-doo's goal of proposing the bill this week, the details of the adjustment proposal will be refined through public hearings and subcommittee reviews. Political circles are showing a movement to process this amendment quickly along with other major judicial reform bills. With a growing trend within the National Assembly recently to prioritize approaches based on legal logic regarding political matters, there is a possibility that the passage of the system could gain momentum.