51 Follow-up Bills to Abolish the Prosecutors' Office Pass National Assembly in a Single Day
Fifty-one follow-up bills underpinning the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office passed the National Assembly's plenary session in a single day.
On the 17th, the National Assembly held a plenary session and processed a total of 70 bills, including 51 prosecution-reform follow-up measures such as amendments to the Criminal Act accompanying the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office and the creation of the Serious Crime Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Service. The vote proceeded narrowly due to unexpected absences by some ruling-party lawmakers, while the People Power Party cast abstentions and votes against. The legislation, spearheaded by the Democratic Party, is seen as the administrative finalization of a criminal justice overhaul that dismantles the prosecution organization and separates investigative and prosecutorial functions.
Why Follow-up Prosecution Reform Legislation Now
Prosecution reform has long been a core judicial reform agenda pursued by opposition forces. The reform began from criticism that the prosecution had abused its dual authority—holding both investigative and prosecutorial powers—to meddle in politics. Accordingly, a structural transformation was pursued to abolish the Prosecutors' Office and establish the Serious Crime Investigation Agency, dedicated to investigations, and the Public Prosecution Service, in charge of prosecution work. However, organizational restructuring alone does not make the legal system function, as provisions referencing 'prosecutors' and 'prosecutors' offices' are scattered throughout individual laws such as the Criminal Act and the Criminal Procedure Act. The 51 follow-up bills passed are practical connective legislation that reorganizes the names and structures of related institutions to fit the new organizational framework.
Key Contents and Scope of the Bills
The backbone of this legislation is the amendment to the Criminal Act, along with the renaming of related institutions following the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office. It includes transferring the investigative command authority and prosecution-maintenance powers previously granted to prosecutors' offices and prosecutors under existing laws to the new agencies. Under this dual structure, the Serious Crime Investigation Agency handles investigations, while the Public Prosecution Service manages indictments and maintaining prosecution through trial stages. As the scope covers the entire criminal justice system, the impact will be broad. The existing structure running from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to district prosecutors' offices will be phased out, and the actors in the process from case intake to indictment will change. Reform advocates explain that separating investigative powers will structurally reduce the potential for the prosecution's monopolistic involvement in specific cases.
Partisan Confrontation and Arguments For and Against
The Democratic Party emphasized that dismantling the prosecution, where power was concentrated, would secure the political neutrality of investigations. Other ruling parties sharing the reform consensus, such as the Cho Kuk Innovation Party, also voiced support for the judicial reform agenda. In contrast, the People Power Party countered that the Serious Crime Investigation Agency is essentially 'renaming the prosecution,' inheriting its investigative powers intact. Behind their abstentions and opposition votes also lay procedural objections that the bills were pushed through in bulk without sufficient review. Some also pointed to the possibility of confusion in criminal justice procedures caused by separating investigation and prosecution. Concerns are that if practical coordination rules—such as the timing of case handovers and who conducts custodial investigations—are not precisely designed, gaps could emerge.
Impact on Markets and Institutions
From the perspective of businesses and investment markets, this overhaul is by no means trivial. When the entities investigating large conglomerates or securities crimes change, the criteria for assessing regulatory risk change as well. In the early stages of the new organizations, transitional uncertainty is inevitable until investigative practices and prosecution standards are established. However, once a structure takes root in which prosecution and investigation check each other, disputes over selective investigations targeting specific companies or individuals could decline. Greater predictability in the criminal justice system would be interpreted as a neutral to positive signal for the market.
Upcoming Schedule and Outlook
Passage of the bills does not mean the overhaul is complete. Follow-up tasks remain, including the new organizations' founding statutes as well as personnel, budget, and work handover provisions. Delays in drafting enforcement decrees and transferring staff could reignite disputes over legal vacuums. The People Power Party is expected to demand revisions if problems emerge during implementation. Since the bills were passed without bipartisan agreement, attempts to reverse the system itself in the event of a change of government cannot be ruled out. Over the next six months to a year, preparations for launching the new institutions are expected to determine the success or failure of the overhaul.
