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 investigative experience, concerns are growing about an investigation vacuum after the final draft of the Public Prosecution Office Establishment Act (Public Prosecution Office Act) removed prosecutors' authority to direct and supervise. Observers note that if personnel without sufficient expertise handle cases on their own, it could lead to procedural violations and poor investigations, with the harm falling on the public.
According to the legal community and political circles on the 19th, the Democratic Party of Korea is set to pass the final draft of the Public Prosecution Office Act at a National Assembly plenary session the same day. The final draft deleted "the authority to direct and supervise special police" from among the duties performed by public prosecutors at the office. The government's original bill had included that authority, but the change is seen as reflecting pressure from hard-liners within the party who say prosecutorial involvement in investigations must be blocked.
The special police system grants investigative authority to civil servants in specific administrative fields such as food, environment, and tariff so they can investigate violations of related laws. About 20,000 are active at the Ministery of Food and Drug Safety, the Korea Customs Service, and local governments.
◇Half of cases transferred by special police do not even reach trial
Many special police are not professional investigative personnel. They are not hired separately but are designated by a chief prosecutor from among general administrative officials. Frequent rotation makes 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 personnel without sufficient investigative experience make up the majority.
In this situation, there are concerns that an investigation vacuum will be unavoidable if prosecutorial direction and supervision also disappear. While special police have administrative expertise in their assigned fields, they inevitably face limits in complying with due process under the Criminal Procedure Act. In fact, of the 72,835 cases that special police transferred to prosecutors in 2024, only 32,765 cases, about 45%, led to indictments. More than half did not proceed to trial.
Concerns are also strong within the prosecution. A prosecutor at a district prosecutors' office in the capital area said, "Even rookie prosecutors go through trial and error before they build investigative experience," adding, "It is the same for special police, and the mechanism to compensate for that 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 lapse after the statute of limitations expires."
Prosecutor Gong Bong-suk at the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office also wrote on the prosecution's internal network (Epros) the previous day, "Ninety-nine percent of the special police practitioners I have met in my prosecutorial career said they struggled with investigative capacity," adding, "Now, having to investigate independently without prosecutorial direction, they could even face complaints and accusations for the crime of distorting the law, which will further intensify difficulties on the front lines."
◇Acquittals could surge… government ministries also say "prosecutorial direction is needed"
The real problem arises after indictment. As courts have recently been strictly applying the "exclusionary rule for illegally collected evidence," evidence collected by special police without following due process may have difficulty being admitted.
A lawyer who previously served as a senior prosecutor said, "If investigations proceed based only on the capabilities of special police without prosecutorial direction, the admissibility of evidence is likely to become an issue in the course of compulsory measures such as searches and seizures, arrests, and detentions," adding, "Even in voluntary investigations, they could be embroiled in disputes over illegal procedures."
For statements or materials obtained in an investigation to be used as evidence at trial, strict procedures must be established from the investigative stage, and prosecutorial legal assistance is needed at that time. The lawyer said, "If investigations into illegal acts are repeatedly neutralized in court due to procedural defects, it will fundamentally undermine the effectiveness of law enforcement."
Some government ministries that operate special police have also raised the need for prosecutorial direction in investigations. According to materials submitted last month by the pan-government prosecutorial reform task force under the Prime Minister's Office to Rep. Shin Dong-wook of the People Power Party, the Ministery of Food and Drug Safety and others said, "Prosecutorial direction is needed 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," while the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment and the Korean Intellectual Property Office likewise expressed support for maintaining the current system.
A legal industry source said, "There are suggestions that the Public Prosecution Office Act could actually increase confusion at the investigative stage," adding, "Before institutional changes, securing investigative capacity and supplementing procedural control mechanisms should come first."