Supreme Court Signals Review of Mandatory Sentence Reduction Clause in Fabricated Indictment Special Prosecutor Act

The Supreme Court has also weighed in on the 'mandatory sentence reduction' clause of the special prosecutor act concerning fabricated indictments.

Regarding the case under investigation by the so-called special prosecutor for fabricated indictments, the Supreme Court has taken the position that the clause of the act, which requires sentences to be reduced for anyone providing key statements or testimony, needs additional review. This is in line with the court's remark that "investigations must not be conducted in the courtroom." In effect, the judiciary has raised a problem with the very structure of the special prosecutor act created by the legislature.

The Core of the Controversy: The Phrase 'Must Reduce the Sentence'

The clause in question provides for sentence reductions for those who give key statements or testimony related to the case under investigation. The crux is that it says the sentence 'must' be reduced, not that it 'may' be. Critics point out that this conflicts with the existing trial structure, in which judges decide whether to reduce a sentence by weighing the circumstances and the merits and demerits of each case.

The Supreme Court's statement that 'additional review is needed' carries weight because the clause could soon be applied directly in actual trials. Once the special prosecutor's investigation moves into full swing, the clause is bound to be contested in the trials of those who provided statements.

From Partisan Confrontation to a Debate Over the Rule of Law

The People Power Party has taken issue with the bill itself, arguing that a clause granting unconditional sentence reductions could encourage false statements. Floor leader Jeong Jeom-sik met with the Presidential Office's Senior Secretary for Political Affairs on the 10th and made clear his opposition, saying, "This is aimed at eliminating the president's own trial." He also urged prosecutors in the indictment division to refuse postings to the special prosecutor's office. The opposition has been escalating its resistance, holding rallies in front of the presidential office and considering a boycott of budget deliberations.

Amid this, the Presidential Office announced it would submit the bill for promulgation to next week's State Council meeting. It had originally planned to submit it on the 10th but gave itself about a week of extra leeway. Attention is now focused on whether the timing of promulgation will be adjusted in light of the Supreme Court's call for further review.

Why Mandatory Sentence Reductions Are Problematic

The sentence reduction system itself is nothing new. Prosecutors and courts have long taken confessions and cooperation into account when setting punishment. But that decision has been made by a judge for each individual case. If a law mandates sentence reductions based solely on the fact that a statement was made, but only for a specific case under investigation, a judge's sentencing authority becomes a mere formality.

Another concern is the credibility of testimony. If reductions are guaranteed, it pays to say whatever is favorable to the investigation and trial. As the saying goes, "truth is stranger than fiction"—statements that are fabricated may end up being packaged more convincingly than the truth. Especially since the purpose is to uncover the truth behind grave matters such as insurrection, any decline in the accuracy of testimony would shake the credibility of the special prosecutor's investigation itself.

The Real Test Comes After Promulgation

The bill has reportedly already passed the National Assembly. The remaining hurdle is promulgation by the government. With the State Council submission set for next week, this week may be the parties' window to work out whether the clause should be revised or the bill re-voted.

If the Supreme Court's call for further review escalates into a constitutional issue, disputes over the clause's validity are expected to continue even after the bill's passage, through constitutional petitions or during trials. How the courts rule—balancing the pace of the special prosecutor's investigation against the sentencing of witnesses—will be the yardstick measuring this law's real effectiveness.