50 Days Until Criminal Procedure Code Revision, 134 Subsequent Bills Lag…Fears of Investigative Authority Vacuum

50 Days Until Criminal Procedure Code Revision: Causes of Delay in Subsequent Legislation

On October 2, roughly 50 days away, Korea’s criminal justice system is set to undergo an unprecedented massive overhaul. With the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act, which completely abolishes the prosecution’s direct investigation rights and supplementary investigation rights, having passed the National Assembly, a transition to a new investigative framework is imminent. However, despite the passage of the core bill, a serious legislative delay persists as a staggering 134 subsequent bills require adjustment to align with the revision. While the fundamental shift in investigative authority itself is part of a judicial reform long discussed, the task of harmonizing the details with the framework of the revised bill is significantly stalled. Consequently, the risk has greatly increased that when the new system is implemented in October, the scopes of work between investigative agencies will overlap, or conversely, that a vacuum will emerge in the criminal justice system.

Core Content of Abolishing Prosecutorial Investigation Rights and Changes in Scope of Application

The most critical aspect of this Criminal Procedure Act revision is the drastic reduction of the investigation termination rights and direct investigation rights previously monopolized by prosecutors. The revision significantly expands the police’s authority to independently investigate and conclude cases, while clearly resetting the legal role of prosecutors to focus on maintaining public prosecutions by deciding whether to indict. Accordingly, numerous subordinate laws and special acts deeply embedded in the existing investigation structure have become subjects for simultaneous revision.

The problem lies in the fact that exactly 134 bills have been identified as targets for this subsequent legislation. The scope is vast, ranging from bills covering the personnel, budget, and organizational restructuring of investigative agencies like the National Police Agency and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), to laws like the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes which define the boundaries of investigative authority. If these 134 bills are not processed in bulk before October 2, legal confusion becomes inevitable: police bound by current laws may conduct investigations contrary to the intent of the revised Criminal Procedure Act, or conversely, blind spots in specific criminal investigations may emerge. The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office has also moved to devise countermeasures, such as considering pilot operations creating operational guidelines within the bounds of current law that reflect the revision's intent before implementation, to mitigate these legal gray areas.

Sharp Debate between Political Circles and Civic Groups

Amidst this radical legislative process, opinions within the political sphere and civil society are starkly divided. The opposition, including the Rebuilding Korea Party, maintains that this is an essential judicial reform to disperse the monopoly of the prosecution—a powerful authority—and strengthen democratic control over criminal investigations. They emphasize that this will allow the reflection of on-site voices transparently in the investigation process and modernize the system overall.

Conversely, the People Power Party strongly criticizes the legislation as dangerous, arguing that it forcibly collapses the nation's criminal justice system by unreasonably applying the principle of separating investigation from adjudication. The party has actually filed jurisdictional disputes and constitutional complaints with the Constitutional Court, judging that the abolition of supplementary investigation rights seriously infringes even on the prosecution's function of maintaining public prosecution. Numerous civic groups have also voiced concerns regarding the protection of crime victims' rights. They point out that the adjustment of investigative authority is meaningful only if concrete subsequent legislation is established to block the possibility of concealing crimes and strengthen victim relief mechanisms.

Fears of a Criminal Justice Vacuum and Outlook for Legislative Schedule

Legal experts analyze that processing the massive volume of 134 subsequent bills before October is realistically very difficult given the time constraints. Citing the National Assembly’s Legislative and Judiciary Committee schedule and the political gridlock between the ruling and opposition parties, they argue that there is absolutely insufficient physical time to complete the legislation on time.

Since the transition to the new investigation and trial system is mandatory after October 2, any legal conflicts arising between unrevised laws could directly and negatively impact real-world cases. Therefore, practical arguments for legal safety measures—such as separately extending the implementation period or temporarily suspending it—are gaining traction. Ultimately, it appears that only through political compromise to drastically accelerate the processing of key subsequent bills in standing committees and plenary sessions can the ruling and opposition parties prevent a fracture in the criminal justice system. To minimize the social costs that could arise from forcefully enforcing the current plan with its inherent risks, coordination at the National Assembly level is urgently needed.