Nine out of 10 lawyers said the prosecutors' right to request supplementary investigations should be maintained.
On the 25th, the Korean Bar Association (KBA) released the results of a "survey on the government's reorganization plan" conducted from the 12th to the 19th. A total of 2,383 lawyers affiliated with the KBA participated in the survey.
Of all respondents, 2,101 (88.1%) said they support giving public prosecution agency prosecutors the right to request supplementary investigations. Specifically, the response "both the right to request supplementary investigations and the supplementary investigation authority should be granted" was the most common at 1,064 (44.6%). The answers "only the right to request supplementary investigations should be granted" came from 765 (32.1%), and "the right to request supplementary investigations and pre-indictment inquiry authority should be granted" from 272 (11.4%). Meanwhile, the response "there is no need to give prosecutors either the right to request supplementary investigations or the supplementary investigation authority" was the lowest at 244 (10.2%).
On the question of controls if prosecutors are allowed supplementary investigation authority, the most common answer was "the supplementary investigation authority should be allowed without limit," with 837 (37.0%). That was followed by "court oversight is necessary" (34.6%) and "oversight by the National Investigation Commission is necessary" (20.9%).
On this, the KBA said, "The results reflect the experiences lawyers have had on the front lines," adding, "Most lawyers appear to agree on the need for a check on judicial police officers in terms of the practical efficacy of investigative procedures." It added, "Although the right to request supplementary investigations already existed, many individual opinions said investigation delays were repeated by so-called 'buck-passing' between the prosecution and the police," and "Beyond whether to grant authority, discussions are needed to define responsibility for investigations and set deadlines."
On the organizational separation of investigation and indictment, more than half of respondents, 1,382 (58.0%), said they oppose it. Reasons for opposition (multiple responses allowed) included "weakened response to crime" (26.4%), "concerns about abuse of authority by the police or investigative bodies" (26.1%), and "investigation and indictment are fundamentally inseparable" (24.3%).
By contrast, 976 (41%) responded in favor of separating investigation and indictment. Reasons for support included "blocking the harms of concentrated prosecutorial power and abuse of power (36.2%)," "restoring the prosecution's original functions (23.4%)," "guaranteeing people's rights and ensuring fairness in criminal justice procedures (16.1%)," and "restoring trust across the criminal justice system (18.7%)."
Regarding the government's plan to establish a "National Investigation Commission," opposition responses numbered 1,452 (56.8%), outnumbering support at 906 (35.4%). Specific reasons for opposition included responses such as "the commission format obscures accountability and causes procedural delays (44.9%)," "a separate body is unnecessary (25.9%)," and "it is sufficient to assign the public prosecution agency the duties of investigation oversight and jurisdictional coordination (20.5%)." Reasons for support included "mediating jurisdictional disputes and preventing duplicate investigations (36.1%)" and "the need for a neutral, collegial body (29.0%)."
As for the preparation period needed for prosecution reform, the most common response was that more than two years are necessary (52.4%). The response that more than one year is needed followed at 22.0%.
On this, the KBA said, "The government organization act revision bill that passed the National Assembly's Public Administration and Security Committee sets a one-year grace period, but most lawyers, as legal experts, expressed the view and concern that 'that is not enough.'"
The KBA added, "Compared to the 1,155 respondents in the 'survey on adjustment of prosecutorial and police investigative powers' in 2022, the number of respondents more than doubled in this survey," and "We will deliver these results, which reflect member lawyers' views on the era's task of 'prosecution reform' as legal experts, to the National Assembly, the government, and relevant authorities so that members' views are fully reflected."