This article was displayed on the ChosunBiz RM Report site at 4:56 p.m. on Mar. 18, 2026.
With about half of special judicial police (special police) having less than one year of experience and lacking investigation know-how, concerns are growing about an investigative gap after the final bill of the Public Prosecution Office Establishment Act removed prosecutors' authority to direct and supervise them. Critics note that if personnel without sufficient expertise handle cases independently, it could lead to procedural violations and shoddy investigations, with the damage falling on the public.
According to the legal community and political circles on the 19th, the Democratic Party of Korea plans to pass the final bill of the Public Prosecution Office Establishment Act at a plenary session of the National Assembly that day. The final bill deletes "the authority to direct and supervise special police" from among the duties performed by prosecutors of the office. Although the government's original bill included that authority, it is seen as reflecting pressure from hard-liners within the party who say prosecutorial involvement in investigations must be blocked.
The special police system authorizes public officials in specific administrative fields such as food, environment, and tariff to investigate violations of related regulations. About 20,000 people are active at the Ministery of Food and Drug Safety, the Korea Customs Service, and local governments.
◇Half of cases sent by special police don't even reach trial
Many special police are not professional investigative personnel. They are not hired separately but are designated by chief prosecutors from among ordinary administrative officials. Frequent rotations make it difficult to accumulate long-term investigative experience.
According to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's "2024 status of special police case handling," 48% of the roughly 20,000 special police had less than one year of experience. Only 8% had worked for five years or more. The structure is such that many lack sufficient investigative experience.
In this situation, there are concerns that the disappearance of prosecutorial direction and supervision will inevitably create an investigative gap. While special police have administrative expertise in their fields, they inevitably face limits in complying with due procedures under the Criminal Procedure Act. In fact, of the 72,835 cases that special police sent to prosecutors in 2024, only 32,765 (about 45%) led to indictments. In other words, more than half did not proceed to trial.
There is also strong concern within the prosecution. A prosecutor at a district prosecutors' office in the Seoul metropolitan area said, "Even rookie prosecutors experience trial and error before they build investigative experience," adding, "It's the same with special police, and the mechanism to make up for this was prosecutorial direction and supervision." The prosecutor added, "If this mechanism disappears, disputes over the legality of investigations will grow, and there could be more cases that are buried after the statute of limitations expires."
Prosecutor Gong Bong-suk at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office also wrote on the internal network (Epros) the previous day, "Ninety-nine percent of the special police practitioners I met during my prosecutorial career said they struggled with investigative capacity," adding, "Now, having to investigate independently without prosecutorial direction could lead to accusations for the crime of distorting the law, further increasing difficulties on the front line."
◇Acquittals could surge… government ministries also say "prosecutorial direction is needed"
The real problem arises after indictment. As courts have recently applied the "exclusionary rule for illegally collected evidence" strictly, evidence collected by special police without adhering to due process may struggle to be admitted.
A lawyer who previously served as a senior prosecutor said, "If investigations proceed based solely on the capabilities of special police without prosecutorial direction, the admissibility of evidence is likely to become an issue during compulsory measures such as search and seizure, arrest, and detention," adding, "Even in voluntary investigations, they could become embroiled in controversies over illegal investigation."
For statements or materials secured during an investigation to be used as evidence at trial, strict procedures must be in place from the investigative stage, and that is when prosecutors' legal assistance is needed. The lawyer said, "If investigations into unlawful acts are repeatedly neutralized in court due to procedural defects, it fundamentally undermines the effectiveness of law enforcement."
Some government ministries that operate special police also raised the need for prosecutorial direction in investigations. According to data the pan-government prosecution reform task force under the Prime Minister's Office submitted to People Power Party lawmaker Shin Dong-wook last month, the Ministery of Food and Drug Safety and others said, "Prosecutorial direction is necessary to ensure investigative expertise and objectivity."
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service also said, "We lack knowledge of criminal law, so investigative direction is needed," and the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment and the Korean Intellectual Property Office likewise expressed support for maintaining the current system.
A legal community source said, "There are concerns that the Public Prosecution Office Establishment Act could actually increase confusion at the investigative stage," adding, "Before changing the system, bolstering investigative capacity and procedural control mechanisms should come first."