Second Independent Counsel Seeks Arrest Warrant for Former Secretary Lee Si-won…Investigation Period Extended by 30 Days

Background of the Second Independent Counsel's Request for Arrest Warrant for Former Secretary Lee Si-won

On the 10th, a single arrest warrant was filed with the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office. The team of the second special counsel, led by Special Prosecutor Kwak Chang-yeong, applied for the warrant for Lee Si-won, former senior presidential secretary for civil discipline, who is a key figure in allegations of external pressure regarding the investigation into the death of Marine Corporal Chae Mo. Through a media notice, the special counsel team officially announced that it had requested the warrant today. This measure is interpreted as an effort to secure charges of obstruction of investigation and leakage of secrets while probing lingering suspicions following the third special counsel.

This investigation is part of a comprehensive special counsel handling three major cases: insurrection, allegations involving First Lady Kim Gun-hee, and the Marine Corporal Chae case. In particular, the Chae case became a political flashpoint after allegations surfaced that the presidential office intervened in the Ministry of National Defense's investigation. The special counsel is focused on verifying whether the former secretary leaked investigation secrets to the outside and exerted undue pressure on the probe. With the arrest warrant also sought for former Ground Operations Commander Kang Ho-pil on suspicion of participating in insurrection during the Dec. 3 martial law declaration, the scope of the investigation appears to be widening.

Extension of Special Counsel Investigation Period by 30 Days and Passage of Bill

To overcome the inherent limitations between the massive volume of investigation and the limited timeframe, the ruling party led the push to extend the special counsel's activity period. On the 10th, a bill extending the deadline for the second comprehensive special counsel by an additional 30 days passed the Judiciary Subcommittee of the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee. This is the result of the ruling party driving the vote despite opposition from the opposition party. Consequently, the Kwak Chang-yeong special counsel team has secured the physical time needed to conduct additional investigations into remaining suspicions.

During the discussions on the extension, the opposition party raised issues regarding investigative efficiency and budget waste. However, the ruling party countered that a minimum amount of time is necessary to conclude the investigation, as summonses and warrant requests for key figures, including former Secretary Lee, are currently underway. Ultimately, the bill passed the Judiciary Subcommittee and is set to be forwarded to the plenary session for final processing. During the extended period, the special counsel team is expected to accelerate efforts to uncover the substantive truth regarding the allegations of external pressure on the investigation.

Debate over Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Surrounding Abolition of Prosecutors' Supplementary Investigation Authority

While the special counsel investigation is in full swing, sharp conflict is arising within the legislature over whether to abolish the prosecution's supplementary investigation authority, a core element of investigative power. Recently, triggered by the Jang Yoon-ki case, criticism was raised that the prosecution abuses supplementary investigations by re-investigating cases even after indictment. In response, the Democratic Party is pushing for a revision of the Criminal Procedure Act to completely abolish prosecutors' investigation powers. On the 11th, Democratic Party floor spokesperson Lee Ju-hee stated in a written briefing that the party is well aware of the concerns regarding the Jang Yoon-ki case and pledged to prepare robust supplementary measures to ensure citizens do not suffer harm.

However, voices of concern are emerging from within the Democratic Party as well. Rep. Hong Ki-won argued that some supplementary investigation authority must be maintained to guarantee the quality of police investigations and is pursuing a separate proposal for the Criminal Procedure Act. During the review by the National Assembly Judiciary Committee, concerns were also raised about the lack of means to preemptively detect abuse of investigative power, such as omission of evidence. If the supplementary investigation authority is completely abolished when the prosecution's monopoly on indictment has already collapsed, there is a high risk that the safety net to correct police investigation errors will disappear.

The restructuring of investigative authority is directly linked to guaranteeing the basic rights of the people. Although the dual system in which the prosecution supplements police investigations produces side effects, hastily removing the prosecution's checking function—even as it holds independent indictment powers—could be dangerous. The ruling and opposition parties, along with civic groups, are engaged in intense legal battles over how to rationally design the prosecution's control over police investigations.

Prospects for Legislative Procedure and Market and Social Impact

The processing speed of the Criminal Procedure Act amendment bill and the special counsel extension bill is expected to vary depending on the schedule of the National Assembly regular session. As the special counsel extension bill has passed the subcommittee, it is scheduled to go into effect immediately after the full Judiciary Committee meeting and the plenary session. The direction of the investigation is expected to become concrete based on the results of the warrant requests for former Secretary Lee and former Commander Kang, making additional indictments likely. On the other hand, the bill to abolish supplementary investigation authority faces the task of harmonizing the revision by Rep. Hong Ki-won and others with the ruling party's original draft.

These bills are major policies that shake the foundations of the judicial system. If legal uncertainty increases during the process of readjusting authority between investigative agencies, it could indirectly affect corporate investment and economic activities. This is because economic actors prioritize the stability of the judicial system. Rather than being buried in political confrontation, the National Assembly must complete legislation that finds a balance between the rational distribution of investigative power between the prosecution and police and the principle of guaranteeing human rights. In the future Judiciary Committee discussions, how specifically the scope of evidence disclosure and measures to protect the rights of suspects are prepared will be a key variable in the passage of the amendment.