Jurisdictional Conflicts Remain a Gap Despite Separation of Investigation and Prosecution

Even after the launch of the Prosecution Office and the Investigation Headquarters for Major Crimes, gaps in jurisdictional conflict remain.

The criminal justice reform, centered on separating investigation from prosecution, has gone into effect. However, according to Yonhap News, experts point out that institutional arrangements alone will not eliminate the possibility of jurisdictional conflicts. This is why calls for follow-up legislation are emerging from within and outside the legal community.

Background of the Reform and Remaining Tasks

The reform is aimed at dismantling the structure in which the prosecution held both investigative and prosecutorial powers simultaneously. By distributing investigative and prosecutorial authority to different institutions, it seeks to reduce the ills of concentrated power in a single agency. President Lee Jae-myung also stated on X (formerly Twitter) that most proponents of prosecutorial reform had called for placing the Investigation Headquarters and Prosecution Office within the Ministry of Justice.

However, blind spots are emerging as the system takes root on the ground. A case in point is the status dispute over dispatched prosecutors from a special investigation team, which surfaced on the very first day of the Prosecution Office's launch. The Kwon Chang-young second special investigation team took the position that existing dispatches remain valid, but similar interpretive clashes could recur at the boundary between the new system and existing investigative organizations.

Where Jurisdictional Conflicts Arise

The core issue is which agency handles a given case. Disputes can arise where the scopes of cases handled by the Prosecution Office, the Investigation Headquarters for Major Crimes, and the police overlap. Experts say that if jurisdictional coordination mechanisms are not clearly established by law, they could devolve into power struggles in practice.

Positions of the ruling and opposition parties also differ sharply. People Power Party floor leader Chung Jeong-sik criticized the abolition of the Prosecutors' Office at the National Assembly's audit preparation meeting on the 2nd, calling it the "death of the criminal investigation system," and said he would push forward by first introducing a bill to restore supplementary investigations. Meanwhile, the ruling party, which led the reform, maintains that the separation of investigation and prosecution represents the institutional completion of checks on powerful agencies. Opposition figures such as Rep. Choi Dong-seon of the Rebuilding Korea Party, who have been involved in coordinating police-prosecutorial investigative authority and prosecutorial reform legislation, are expected to accelerate follow-up legislative work.

Direction of Follow-up Legislation

There are three major tasks to address. First are the rules for inter-agency jurisdictional coordination. Confusion in practice can only be reduced by explicitly stipulating case transfer criteria and dispute resolution procedures in law. Second is the supplementary investigation system. Without provisions on who conducts additional investigations during the prosecution stage and under what procedures, maintaining indictments could face difficulties.

Finally, there is the connection with existing institutions such as special prosecutors. As seen in the recent dispute over dispatched prosecutors' status, mismatches between new organizations and outdated regulations can become seeds of legal disputes at any time. Observers note that a comprehensive overhaul of related laws is needed to prevent similar conflicts.

Outlook for the Legislative Schedule

Ahead of the parliamentary audit season, the ruling and opposition parties are expected to compete in rolling out their respective bills. The opposition is likely to prioritize introducing the supplementary investigation restoration bill, while the ruling party will likely focus on improving jurisdictional coordination and organizational operation rules. Once bill review begins in earnest at the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, fierce battles over jurisdictional design are expected.

The stability of the criminal justice system is determined not by legal wording but by practice. Given that the reform's intent could be significantly undermined without effective mechanisms to coordinate jurisdictional conflicts, the content and pace of follow-up legislation are expected to determine the quality of future criminal justice operations.