Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Passes, Shaking the Roots of the 70-Year Judicial System

Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Passes, Shaking the Roots of the 70-Year Judicial System

A historic turning point has been established, marking the complete transition of a judicial system that had allowed prosecutors to directly investigate crimes for the past 70 years. On the 31st, the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, which completely abolishes the prosecution's supplementary investigation authority, was finally passed at the plenary session of the National Assembly, led by the Democratic Party. Consequently, the era of the 'investigating prosecutor' is over, and a power structure solely dedicated to indictment has been legally confirmed. The core issue of the Criminal Procedure Act amendment mandates the clear separation of investigation and indictment powers. Through this legal revision, the prosecution's authority to reinvestigate cases that the police had already primarily investigated—known as supplementary investigation authority—has been fundamentally blocked.

With the passage of the amendment, the prosecution will now only decide whether to indict cases handed over by the police. The division of roles between the police as the investigative agency and the prosecution as the indictment agency has been clearly institutionalized. The legislative intent is to strengthen the principle of separation of powers between investigation and trial within the judicial system. However, fierce conflict continues as exceptional clauses have been established to exclude the application of the existing judicial system for specific cases with high political sensitivity.

Rationale and Core of the System for Police-Prosecution Investigation Separation

The fundamental background of this legislation aims to prevent the prosecution's excessive monopoly on power and achieve checks and balances between agencies. Previously, prosecutors commanded investigations directly and oversaw trials, wielding vast authority. This led to persistent concerns about potential bias in investigations. A key driver for institutional reform was the criticism that an agency with indictment power, by collecting evidence directly, inevitably steers investigations in a direction favorable to indictment.

During the actual processing of the bill, conflicts surrounding methods for investigating corruption allegations against the core of power came to the surface. In recent issues regarding special counsels for rebellion and comprehensive investigations, the question of intervention in investigations against specific politicians led to sharp confrontations. In particular, the first-instance court's decision to dismiss the appeal against former Justice Minister Park Sung-jae, who was referred to trial on charges of soliciting to suppress suspicions related to First Lady Kim Keon Hee, acted as a catalyst to accelerate the bill's passage. The ruling party emphasized that a uniform abolition of supplementary investigation authority was essential to correct the imbalance in the judicial system. Their logic is that a complete separation of investigation and indictment establishes an objective and fair criminal judicial process.

Ruling-Opposition Debate and Concerns Over Gaps in Victim Protection

Political positions surrounding the bill's processing were starkly divided. The ruling party evaluated that the National Assembly's passage of the Criminal Procedure Act signified the complete separation of investigation and indictment, finally completing the long-standing task of prosecutorial reform. They projected that the abolition of direct investigation authority would institutionally control the prosecution's arbitrary and dogmatic investigation practices. Conversely, the opposition and critics denounced it as dangerous legislation that would collapse the very foundations of the national investigation system.

Even Rep. Kwak Sang-eon of the Democratic Party, the son-in-law of the late former President Roh Moo-hyun, cast a vote against the bill. Rep. Kwak argued that excessive reduction of prosecutorial power would punch holes in the investigative net directly connected to public safety and could ultimately lead to public suffering. Beyond political stance, the qualitative decline of investigations and the protection of victims' rights in criminal procedures emerged as core issues. Rep. Jo Jin-goo of the Rebuilding Korea Party pointed out that discussions need to be expanded toward protecting victims' rights throughout the entire criminal procedure and revising the statute of limitations system. Critics argue that a balance must be struck, maintaining the state's strong investigative capabilities while safeguarding citizens' rights. There are also concerns that the unification of investigation authority could have a negative impact on eradicating major crimes, given that the police's independent investigative capabilities have not been fully verified.

Remaining Legislative Tasks and Future Outlook for the Judicial System

With the plenary passage, the framework of the Criminal Procedure Act is set, but legislative tasks remain. Subsequent discussions are expected to focus on the independence of the Commissioner of the National Police Agency’s command authority to practically ensure police independence, and the establishment of checks and balances to prevent abuse of investigative power. Additionally, the fact that the amendment to the National Assembly Act, which drastically shortens the fast-track period from 330 days to 90 days, was put to a plenary vote will significantly influence future legislative schedules. As institutional devices to prevent legislative delays and expedite the processing of core bills are strengthened, the pace of judicial reform is accelerating.

In terms of the market and industry, an increase in demand for legal advice in the public sector is anticipated. The rapid change in the judicial system requires modifications to corporate compliance and risk management strategies. Companies face a situation where they must completely re-evaluate their legal risk assessment criteria due to the unification of investigative agencies. Moving forward, the police are expected to enhance their investigative expertise, while the prosecution is expected to reorganize its organization to improve the quality of indictments. While positive effects are anticipated regarding the transparency of the judicial system, the systematic preparation for potential case delays has emerged as an urgent task.