Complete Abolition of Prosecutorial Investigation Authority…Plans to Grant Police Investigative Independence and Expedite Mandatory Referral of 7 Major Crimes

Biggest Judicial Reform Since 1954…Prosecutors Completely Stripped of Investigation Powers

The amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, passed by the National Assembly plenary session on July 31, calls for the complete abolition of the prosecution's direct investigation and supplementary investigation powers. This marks the most fundamental change to the judicial system in 70 years since the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Act in 1954. The image of a prosecutor canvassing crime scenes and directly investigating cases—a recurring theme in movies and dramas—is legally a thing of the past. From now on, prosecutors will retain only the authority to indict, deciding whether to request a trial for cases handed over by the police and maintaining the prosecution in court. The principle of separating investigation and prosecution, the axis of the judicial system, has thus been legally completed.

Filling the Power Vacuum from Abolition and the Core of the '7 Major Crimes Mandatory Referral' Bill

Follow-up legislation is gaining momentum to prevent investigative power vacuums and side effects resulting from the amendment's passage. The Democratic Party of Korea's Judiciary Committee pledged to swiftly process the 'mandatory referral of all cases for 7 major crimes' bill as a safety measure to check the police's independent investigations. The bill mandates that for seven major crimes—including murder, robbery, fraud, and sexual crimes—that cause critical harm to citizens' daily lives, the police must refer the case to the prosecution without concluding the investigation themselves. If adopted, this system would grant prosecutors control powers, allowing them to comprehensively review entire cases and make final decisions, such as non-indictment, without having to conduct investigations directly. The ruling party aims to pass the related bill within the next provisional session of the National Assembly at the latest to ensure the stability of the new judicial framework.

Sharp Legal Skirmishes Between Ruling and Opposition Parties…From Unconstitutionality Debates to Legislative Momentum

Throughout the legislative process, the philosophical and legal interpretations of the ruling and opposition parties clashed sharply. The ruling party grounded the amendment's legitimacy in the need to prevent the concentration of power—specifically the amalgamation of investigation and prosecution authority in a single body—and to fundamentally block biased investigations by the prosecution. Civil society organizations, which have long called for prosecution reform, also assessed this passage as a significant advancement for judicial justice. Conversely, the People Power Party played a trump card. They argued that completely abolishing even the 'supplementary investigation power'—where prosecutors review police results and reinvestigate—seriously infringes upon the independence of prosecutors and the right to indict guaranteed by the Constitution. Citing the strong likelihood of unconstitutionality, the People Power Party announced it would file a competence dispute petition or a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. This sets the stage for fierce battles over legal validity centered on the political sphere.

Focus of August Provisional Session…Fast-track Deadline Reduction and Special Counsel Bill

Despite the massive shift in the judicial system, the parliamentary schedule faces a political deadlock. The ruling and opposition parties are expected to continue their tense confrontation during the upcoming provisional Assembly session in August. Coordination is required regarding the processing speed of the '7 Major Crimes Mandatory Referral Bill,' designed to complement the new investigation system. Simultaneously, an amendment to the National Assembly Act is expected to be put to a plenary vote, aiming to drastically shorten the bill review period from the current 330 days to 90 days to prevent legislative delays. This bill, which reforms the 'fast-track' system designed to expedite bill processing, is also seeing sharp conflicts of interest between the parties during committee review. Furthermore, external variables—such as the comprehensive special counsel investigating the presidential office's relocation controversy summoning relevant lawmakers—are significantly impacting the political schedule. Whether these legislative measures, which shake the very foundations of the judicial system, will prove effective in practice will ultimately be determined by the results of future bill reviews at the National Assembly and the Constitutional Court's legal judgments.