Prosecution's Investigative Powers Abolished: Criminal Procedure Act Passes State Council

Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Abolishing Prosecutors' Investigative Powers Approved by State Council

At the 34th State Council meeting chaired by President Lee Jae-myung on August 4, 2026, the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act, which comprehensively abolishes prosecutors' direct investigative and supplementary investigative powers, received final approval. This amendment is seen as a measure that fundamentally reorganizes the prosecution-centric criminal justice system that has been in place for 72 years since the establishment of the Republic of Korea. Following the State Council's approval, the government plans to promulgate the bill within a week and officially implement it starting October 2. The core of the bill is the complete separation of investigation and prosecution. Consequently, not only the direct investigative authority previously held by prosecutors but also the supplementary investigative power, which existed to address deficiencies in police investigations, will be eliminated.

During the State Council meeting, President Lee Jae-myung assessed that the National Assembly's amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act serves as a catalyst for the advanced normalization of the criminal justice system. The President stated that it is difficult to consider the bill so severely that it warrants the exercise of a veto, addressing concerns raised inside and outside the political sphere regarding the possibility of a presidential veto. He particularly emphasized the low likelihood of constitutional issues or violations of national interest, thereby legitimizing the bill's approval. This measure is interpreted as a reflection of the government's strong will to prevent prosecutorial overreach by separating investigative and prosecutorial powers, despite concerns that it could lead to an overconcentration of investigative authority in the police.

Complete Separation of Investigation and Prosecution and a Paradigm Shift in the Judicial System

According to the amended Criminal Procedure Act, the police will exclusively hold the primary investigative authority for all crimes. The scope of direct investigation by prosecutors, maintained under the existing Prosecutors' Office Act and Criminal Procedure Act, will virtually cease to exist. Prosecutors will focus solely on deciding whether to indict and maintain charges based on cases transferred by the police. The most significant change is the abolition of prosecutors' supplementary investigative powers. Previously, if prosecutors deemed police investigations insufficient, they could conduct supplementary investigations themselves or request them from the police. Now, even if a need for supplementation is identified, the procedure will only involve requesting a reinvestigation from the police. This coexists with positive aspects such as clarifying the investigative authority and enhancing accountability, while also raising concerns about potential delays in criminal justice procedures.

Legal experts predict that this legislative amendment will present considerable challenges in terms of investigative efficiency. The key question is whether the police can adequately handle the increased workload with their investigative expertise and personnel. Specifically, concerns have been raised that evidence gathering and proof of charges may become more difficult than before, as prosecutors with specialized knowledge will be excluded from the investigative phase, particularly in complex economic and intellectual crimes. On the other hand, there are considerable expectations that the separation of investigative and prosecutorial authorities will strengthen defendants' defense rights and reduce the potential for human rights violations during investigations. The government is expected to prioritize enhancing the investigative capabilities and personnel allocation of the police force in the remaining period before implementation.

Intense Confrontation Between Ruling and Opposition Parties and the Spread of Self-Protection Controversy

Political reactions to the bill's passage were sharply divided. President Lee Jae-myung assessed the amendment as a just measure to rectify the prosecution's practice of repeated targeted investigations. The Presidential Office repeatedly emphasized that the adjustment of investigative powers is an institutional mechanism to realize judicial justice. In contrast, conservative opposition parties, including the People Power Party, immediately protested, labeling the bill as the completion of "self-protection." In a statement, People Power Party Floor Leader Choi Eun-seok strongly criticized the government for acquiescing to legislative overreach aimed at protecting specific politicians, stating that the President's decision not to exercise the veto power amounted to abandoning the lives and safety of the people.

Floor Leader Jeong Jeong-sik and other leaders of the People Power Party, including lawmaker Jang Dong-hyuk, argued that the government's amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act would shake the foundations of the judicial system and, coupled with the failure of real estate policies, would exacerbate public suffering.

Opinions are also divided within civil society and the legal community. While some civic groups support the amendment in terms of curbing prosecutorial power, some expert organizations, including the Korean Bar Association, are concerned about a judicial vacuum resulting from hasty legislation. In particular, it remains a future legal dispute how courts will rule if defendants raise legal issues based on having been investigated by individuals without investigative authority. This is why voices cautiously calling for supplementary legislation to minimize confusion after the law's implementation are being heard from both the ruling and opposition parties.

Future Outlook for the Criminal Justice System Ahead of October Implementation

With the official implementation of the bill on October 2, South Korea's criminal procedure is expected to enter a period of significant transition. As its investigative functions are abolished, the prosecution is slated to be reorganized into an organization focused on maintaining indictments and conducting trials. The police, centered around the National Investigation Headquarters, face the challenge of establishing internal control mechanisms to manage their expanded investigative authority. The market and industry are closely watching the impact of changes in investigative procedures on corporate investigations and the handling of economic cases, with concerns that extended investigation periods could increase uncertainty in corporate management.

In terms of future legislative procedures, follow-up measures are anticipated to minimize the adverse effects of the amended law. Voices calling for the introduction of special prosecutors (SP) or the dispatch of prosecutors for major cases are likely to continue to address the void left by the abolition of prosecutorial investigative powers. Furthermore, with a backlog of legislative tasks entangled with political interests, similar to key bills related to the Korean Peninsula currently pending in the Senate, the political landscape is expected to enter another phase of conflict between the ruling and opposition parties following the Criminal Procedure Act amendment. It is imperative for the government to swiftly finalize new work coordination guidelines between the police and the prosecution to prevent administrative errors during the initial implementation phase.