Prosecution's Investigative Powers Abolished: A Complete Overhaul of the Criminal Justice System After 72 Years

End of Investigative Power Separation and Fundamental Change to the 72-Year Criminal Justice System

On the morning of August 4, 2026, at the State Council held at the Government Complex Seoul in Jongno-gu, Seoul, an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act was passed, which comprehensively abolishes the prosecution's supplementary investigative powers and direct investigative authority. This marks a historical turning point for the prosecution-centric investigative structure that has been in place for 72 years since the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Act in 1954. The passage of this amendment aims to have prosecutors step down from their role as primary investigators who directly question suspects or collect evidence, and instead focus on their core role as prosecution bodies responsible for maintaining indictments and deciding on prosecution for cases transferred from the police.

The President, who presided over the meeting, ultimately approved the bill, stating that it was not severe enough to warrant the opposition parties' proposal for a veto. With the government expressing its intention to respect the legislative branch's decision, the debate over the complete transfer of investigative powers to the police, which had been fiercely contested by politicians and legal circles, has now concluded its administrative procedures and entered the implementation phase. This legal amendment is interpreted as a decision that completely shifts the center of national investigative capabilities to the police, balancing the efficiency of criminal justice procedures with the protection of suspects' human rights.

Key Contents of Supplementary Investigative Power Abolition and Structural Reorganization of Investigative Procedures

The core of the amended Criminal Procedure Act is the deletion of the prosecution's supplementary investigative powers. Under the existing system, after the police concluded an investigation and transferred a case, the prosecution could directly investigate deficiencies or request supplementary investigations from the police. However, once the amendment takes effect, prosecutors will generally be prohibited from conducting supplementary investigations directly, and all investigative processes must be completed at the police stage. This is evaluated as the final step in judicial reform aimed at the complete separation of investigation and prosecution.

The scope of application is comprehensive, ranging from general criminal cases to corporate investigations and political cases. In particular, businesses will face a situation requiring a complete revision of their response strategies due to the unification of the investigative authority. In the past, exercising defense rights during direct prosecution investigations was common, but from now on, initial responses at the police stage are expected to have a decisive impact on trial outcomes. Experts analyze that while the centralization of the investigation stage with the police may lead to shorter investigation periods, concerns remain about the weakening of the prosecution's dual review function, potentially leading to flawed investigations or human rights violations.

Specifically, the amended bill prohibits prosecutors from directly collecting evidence and stipulates that they can only request corrective measures in limited circumstances if the police's investigation results are deemed insufficient. While these changes are intended to promote mutual checks and balances between investigative agencies, they practically prompt renewed discussions on whether sufficient control mechanisms exist for the expanded powers of the police.

Sharp Differences in Stances Between Ruling and Opposition Parties and Multifaceted Analysis from the Legal Community

Confrontation in the political arena surrounding the legislative process remains intense. The Democratic Party of Korea evaluates this amendment as dismantling the prosecution's unchecked power and establishing a human rights-centered judicial system. Seo Young-kyo, Chairman of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, emphasized that the bill falls under the legislative purview of the National Assembly as stipulated by the Constitution, asserting its lack of unconstitutionality.

In contrast, the People Power Party strongly opposes the State Council's resolution, calling it the completion of self-protection. Choi Eun-seok, the People Power Party's Deputy Floor Leader, issued a statement criticizing the President's decision not to veto as a result that will threaten the lives and safety of the people. Legal circles are also divided in their analyses. Some experts predict that the abolition of the prosecution's supplementary investigative powers will resolve investigation delays and strengthen the police's accountable investigations. However, some organizations, including the Korean Bar Association, point out that the investigative expertise of experienced prosecutors will be lost, potentially diminishing the capacity to handle intelligent crimes and white-collar crimes. The ability of the police to replace prosecutors in areas requiring complex quantitative analysis, such as violations of the Capital Markets Act or large-scale financial fraud cases, is emerging as a key concern for the market.

Lee Jun-seok, a member of the New Reform Party, commented that it will be recorded in history that this bill was created under the leadership of a specific political party and that the President did not defend it, arguing that responsibility for future judicial vacuums must be clarified. Such controversies are likely to intensify depending on any errors or confusion that arise in actual investigative practices after the law's implementation.

Industrial Impact and Market Outlook Based on Future Legislative Procedures

The concurrent passage of major economic-related bills, such as the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on Semiconductors, alongside the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, carries significant implications. The government is pursuing a major overhaul of the judicial system while simultaneously striving for economic stabilization by promising up to 100% support for the infrastructure of semiconductor clusters, a national strategic industry. This is interpreted as reflecting the government's multifaceted intentions to minimize social disruption caused by judicial reform and accelerate the growth of the people's livelihood economy and advanced industries.

Looking ahead, the plenary session of the National Assembly scheduled for August 13 is expected to be a crucial juncture. The Democratic Party of Korea is pushing for the swift passage of livelihood bills, including bills to shorten the fast-track process and the Special Act on Public Housing, which are intended to supplement post-judicial system reform measures. In particular, the increase in budget and reallocation of personnel to strengthen the police's investigative capabilities are expected to become key issues during the review of the next budget proposal.

The investment market and industrial sector are closely monitoring the impact of the changes in the investigative system on the corporate regulatory environment. The shift in investigative authority signifies a change in legal risk management costs, which is expected to lead to the strengthening of corporate compliance management systems in the long term. While the government and relevant ministries have stated their intention to promptly pursue major policy tasks resulting from the law's implementation, effectively resolving the conflicting challenges of securing investigative expertise within an expanded police organization and strengthening the prosecution's indictment maintenance function will be crucial for establishing a stable judicial environment going forward.