The Democratic Party of Korea held a policy caucus on Oct. 2 ahead of the launch of the Office of Public Prosecution and the Office of Serious Crimes Investigation to discuss prosecutors' supplemental investigation authority, but only 12 lawmakers stayed until the end. Inside and outside the party, some said it was effectively a "meaningless caucus."
On the afternoon of the 21st, the Democratic Party held a policy caucus at the National Assembly to coordinate differences for and against the complete abolition of supplemental investigation authority, viewed as the final task of prosecution reform. In particular, a bill allowing prosecutors to retain part of their supplemental investigation authority only for cases involving the socially vulnerable, led by Rep. Hong Ki-won and 10 others, was also taken up.
However, as expert presentations went on, many lawmakers left. Except for Floor Leader Han Byeong-do, who chaired the policy caucus, and Reps. Han Jeong-ae and Park Sang-hyuk, most dropped out midway. In the end, only 12 remained when the meeting wrapped up. The lawmakers who stayed were Kwon Hyang-yeop, Kim Nam-hee, Kim Dong-a, Kim Seung-won, Kim Han-gyu, Park Kyun-taek, Park Hee-seung, Seo Young-kyo, Yoon Jong-goon, Cho Gye-won, Cheon Jun-ho and Hong Ki-won. Given that the Democratic Party has 161 lawmakers in total, those who stayed to the end did not even reach 10%.
There was also criticism of the policy caucus's effectiveness. A Democratic Party official said, "Even though it was a session to address the key issues concluding prosecution reform, only about a dozen lawmakers stayed until the end," adding, "It can only be seen as a perfunctory caucus."
Meanwhile, the caucus heard various views on whether to completely abolish prosecutors' supplemental investigation authority. Park Chan-woon, a professor at Hanyang University Law School, said, "If even supplemental investigations are abolished, this round of prosecution reform will, in my view, be the worst," adding, "What is called supplemental investigation can never be the target of reform in the first place."
He went on, "As long as we maintain the prosecutor system, (supplemental investigation authority) is an essential act for charging decisions; prosecutors cannot send a case to trial by looking only at the records." He added, "Supplemental investigation has never been addressed in any discussion of prosecution reform," and said, "Abolishing supplemental investigation is merely a product of anger toward the prosecution that spread after the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk-yeol and cannot be the basis for institutional design."
Those favoring complete abolition of supplemental investigation authority rejected its link to protection of victims. Yoo Seung-ik, a professor at Myongji University, said, "Even if (abolishing supplemental investigation authority) is seen as weak on victim protection, you cannot assign the function of supplemental investigation to prosecutors who hold the right to indict." He continued, "Retaining prosecutors' supplemental investigation authority is not an alternative for victim protection at all," adding that prosecutors' direct investigations or supplemental investigations could instead infringe on victims' personal rights and act as an obstacle that causes serious secondary harm.
Criticism was also raised over the bill led by Rep. Hong Ki-won. Professor Yoo said, "It appears to abolish prosecutors' authority to initiate direct investigations while exceptionally allowing supplemental investigations," adding, "It cites victim protection as a reason, but lacks substantive protection measures."