A new controversy is brewing over a bill to revise the Criminal Procedure Act centered on fully abolishing prosecutorial investigative authority. As the Democratic Party of Korea moved to create a new "prosecutor's right to interview" as a supplement to abolishing investigative powers, not only the People Power Party but also the courts and the Ministry of Justice said it "does not fit the legal system."
The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee held its first subcommittee on bill review on the morning of the 28th and reviewed bills including a Criminal Procedure Act amendment introduced by Kim Seung-won, a Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker and the ruling party's secretary. Kim inserted a provision for a "prosecutor's right to interview" in the amendment. Before deciding whether to indict, the prosecutor would structure the process of hearing necessary facts from parties involved in the case in the form of an interview right. It can be seen as an attempt to address concerns that a prosecutor cannot decide whether to indict by reading only police investigation records and to respond to the need to prevent shoddy or excessive investigations.
A Legislation and Judiciary Committee member from the ruling party reportedly asked an official from the National Court Administration who attended the meeting that day, "Can the contents of a prosecutor's interview qualify as evidence?" The question suggested that because the results of an interview cannot be used as evidence of guilt at trial, the interview would not constitute an investigation. Kim's amendment also specifies that the results of a prosecutor's interview cannot be used as evidence of guilt.
However, the National Court Administration official answered to the effect that "because a series of acts aimed at collecting evidence of guilt constitutes an investigation, if information secured during the interview is used in court to prove guilt, that act constitutes an investigation." The Democratic Party of Korea holds that an interview cannot be viewed as an investigation, but the National Court Administration effectively expressed the opposite view.
Park Hyeong-su, a People Power Party lawmaker who is the opposition secretary on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, also said at the meeting the previous day, "Having barred supplementary investigations while leaving the door open to discretionary investigative methods proves there are many problems." It can be understood as a point that a prosecutor's interview is essentially the same as discretionary investigative acts like suspect questioning and witness questioning, and thus should be structured as a form of investigative power. The implication is that only then would judicial control over excessive or inadequate investigations be possible.
Earlier, the Ministry of Justice also expressed caution. Lee Jin-su, Vice Minister of the Ministry of Justice, said at the Legislation and Judiciary subcommittee on the 23rd, "Although the interview right has been included in some bills, it is extremely difficult to stipulate how to design the procedures and whether it has evidentiary value," adding, "It is really hard to find examples anywhere in the world of a system where prosecutors operate an interview scheme."