Democratic Party Adopts Party Stance on Criminal Procedure Act Revision Abolishing Prosecutorial Supplementary Investigation, Strengthening Police Mandate

Legislative Branch Launches Restructuring of Investigative Authority

The Democratic Party has proposed, as a party position, a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act that would completely abolish the prosecution's supplementary investigation rights by July 9, 2026. The core of the bill centers on eliminating the system where prosecutors maintaining an indictment conduct additional investigations directly, replacing it with a strengthened "supplementary investigation request" power that obligates the police to initiate investigations. The National Assembly Legislative and Judiciary Committee has promptly placed the related bill on the agenda, and the ruling party's Criminal Procedure Act reform task force aims to finalize related procedures within this month. Political circles and civil society organizations assess the legislative agenda as highly significant, viewing it as the final piece of the puzzle in reforming state authorities.

The Dilemma of Abolishing Supplementary Investigation vs. Strengthening Request Powers

Under current law, prosecutors review case records transferred by the police and, if they deem further investigation necessary, exercise the authority to reinvestigate the case directly. The opposition and critics in the legal community have argued that this prosecutorial power has served as a structural breeding ground for the monopoly on investigation and indictment. Indeed, in the past, the prosecution has influenced the direction of investigations by conducting supplementary investigations on its own in cases involving high-ranking public officials. Nevertheless, there are significant voices pointing out the limitations of the police, who lack independent investigative infrastructure.

To address these shortcomings, the revision establishes a new mandatory clause requiring the police to comply when a public prosecutor requests a supplementary investigation. The police must begin the investigation without delay upon receiving a request and complete the inquiry within one month. Furthermore, a basis for changing the investigative agency has been established in case the police inappropriately conduct an investigation. The ruling party has designed a structure to clearly separate powers, leaving the final judgment authority with the prosecutor while having the police, the primary investigative agency, take full charge of direct interrogation and evidence collection.

Sharp Differences in Political Stances and Repercussions

Opposition figures, such as Rep. Kim Kyung-hee of the Rebuilding Korea Party, have emphasized the justification for institutional reform to resolve judicial risks, citing past instances of prosecutorial abuse of investigative authority used to suppress political opponents. Conversely, the People Power Party criticizes the move, arguing that stripping prosecutors of follow-up investigation authority while police investigative capacity remains insufficient undermines the protective barrier for citizens' basic rights. The opposition has expressed concerns that the discovery of substantive truth in major cases, such as corruption involving high-ranking officials, could be weakened, and has moved to block the legislation's passage.

Whether this revision is passed will serve as a critical benchmark that could fundamentally shake the landscape of the national investigative system in the future.

Reshaping the Investigative Landscape and Future Legislative Schedule

The main point of contention regarding the bill focuses on whether the police can demonstrate efficiency in investigating complex cases, such as sophisticated financial and securities crimes or incidents involving multiple suspects. If the police fail to conclude a case within the statutory one-month deadline, a prolonged vacuum could lead to significant delays in indictment. Consequently, legal circles have continuously suggested that exception clauses are necessary for special cases requiring a high degree of expertise. Separately, how the balance is struck between the prosecution's indictment powers and police independence remains a key variable in risk management.

The National Assembly Legislative and Judiciary Committee is accelerating its schedule, aiming to bring the bill to a plenary session next month after coordinating opinions among members and holding public hearings. However, given the significant disagreement between the ruling and opposition parties, even scheduling the bill's subcommittee and full committee meetings is expected to face difficulties. In particular, at a time when political schedules are intertwined, there is a possibility that this legislation, which determines the long-term direction of investigative agencies, could flare up as an election issue. Whether it will be processed in its original form to produce tangible results in state authority reform, or discussed alongside alternatives to drastically increase police investigative personnel, will ultimately be decided by the National Assembly's future voting behavior.