A bill to establish the Prosecution Office, which will be created following the abolition of the Prosecution Service, passed the National Assembly's plenary session on the 20th. Going forward, the Prosecution Service will be converted into the Prosecution Office, which will handle only the filing and maintenance of indictments, and prosecutors affiliated with the Prosecution Office will not be able to conduct investigations. As the authority to direct and supervise special judicial police officers (special police) that has been maintained by the prosecution is also abolished, forecasts say confusion on the front lines is inevitable.
According to legal sources, the Prosecution Office Act, which passed the National Assembly's plenary session that day, will take effect on Oct. 2. The Prosecution Office will exclusively handle indictments and will operate under a three-tier system: the Prosecution Office, the Metropolitan Prosecution Office, and the Local Prosecution Office.
Under the law, the duties of prosecutors affiliated with the Prosecution Office are limited to deciding whether to file and maintain indictments, matters necessary for requesting warrants, and directing and supervising the execution of judgments. The authority to request warrants and to direct their execution, which is specified in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act as powers of prosecutors, has also been stripped. Previously, when the police applied for warrants, prosecutors could issue guidance, including requesting supplements, but from now on, they must decide whether to request warrants based only on the records forwarded by the police.
Provisions guaranteeing the status of prosecutors were also revised to allow dismissal without impeachment proceedings. Under the current Prosecutors' Office Act, prosecutors can be dismissed only if the Constitutional Court renders a removal decision in an impeachment trial or if they are sentenced to imprisonment without labor or heavier punishment. Now, however, dismissal is possible by disciplinary action alone, like ordinary civil servants.
The authority of prosecutors to "direct and supervise special police" was also deleted. The government's originally preannounced bill included that authority. But it was removed from the final version that passed the National Assembly's plenary session that day. The Democratic Party of Korea said it "cut off any potential bridge for Prosecution Office prosecutors to interfere in investigations."
In the legal community, the removal of the authority to direct and supervise special police raised the greatest concern. Special police are general civil servants who perform judicial police duties in specific administrative fields such as food, environment, and tariff, and are not investigation specialists. In principle, when conducting criminal investigations or supporting tasks, they were to be directed by prosecutors.
However, going forward, with the prosecution no longer able to direct or supervise special police, they must decide on their own everything from determining whether a crime is established to the procedures and methods of compulsory investigations such as searches and seizures.
An attorney at a major law firm who previously served as a district prosecutors' office chief said, "There is often a misunderstanding that the prosecution has been directing special police investigations, but in reality it was closer to assistance to supplement special police who are unfamiliar with criminal procedures," adding, "Some prosecution personnel have been seconded to support special police, but going forward, they will have to hire defense counsel externally at great expense."
An attorney who previously handled special police direction duties at the prosecution also said, "For example, in tax-related cases, depending on whether it is viewed as intentional tax evasion or a simple failure to file, the trial outcome and sentence vary significantly," adding, "Special police must make such legal assessments independently, but if standards waver, it cannot be ruled out that corporations or individuals may face unjust punishment."
An attorney who previously served as a senior prosecutor said, "For statements or materials obtained during an investigation to be used as evidence at trial, strict procedures must be followed from the investigation stage, and at that point, a prosecutor's legal assistance is necessary," adding, "If the prosecution's authority to direct special police investigations is removed without countermeasures, special police investigative activities will fall into a blind spot of judicial oversight, and the harm will be borne entirely by the public."
Voices of concern are also emerging within the prosecution. Prosecutor Gong Bong-suk of the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office wrote on the internal network (Epros) on the 18th, "Ninety-nine percent of the special police practitioners I met during my career as a prosecutor expressed difficulties related to investigative capabilities," adding, "Now, as they must investigate independently without prosecutorial direction, they could be accused or reported for the crime of perverting the law, which will further aggravate difficulties on the front lines."