"The prosecution has achieved major results. (omission) Please give credit where it's due."
President Lee Jae-myung, who is pushing what is called "prosecution reform," unusually praised the prosecution in public on Feb. 2. He highly evaluated the results achieved in a price-fixing case that drives up the cost of living.
But concerns are growing that this capability to investigate collusion could weaken during the prosecution reform process itself. Critics say a gap could open in the existing investigative structure when the Prosecution Service is abolished in Oct. and a system separating investigation and indictment is introduced.
◇Will the "consolidation structure" between the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) and the prosecution be shaken
According to legal sources on the 2nd, unfair trade cases now proceed with the Korea Fair Trade Commission, which holds the "exclusive right to file complaints," investigating and then filing a complaint, after which the prosecution takes over the investigation. If the prosecution first learns of a case, it asks the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) to file a complaint and then begins investigating. It is a structure in which investigation, inquiry, and indictment mesh organically.
However, on Oct. 2, when the prosecution is abolished and the Office of Public Prosecution and the Serious Crime Investigation Office (SCIO) are established, this framework will fundamentally change. The Office of Public Prosecution will handle indictments and the maintenance of prosecutions (trials), while the SCIO will be dedicated to investigating serious crimes such as corruption and economic offenses. Still, with even the question of which agency the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) should file complaints to not clearly settled, the separation of investigation and indictment raises the possibility that the existing collaborative structure will weaken.
Confusion in the transition of the system is already emerging. At a Cabinet meeting at the presidential office on the 31st, President Lee said, "Separating investigation and indictment through legislation will create a complex situation that requires revising both the Criminal Procedure Act and the Criminal Act," noting, "There is a considerable possibility of omissions or conflicts." He then directed Minister of Government Legislation Cho Won-chul to "scrutinize it carefully."
There were also divergent views among ministries on which agency should receive complaints. The Ministry of Justice pointed to the Office of Public Prosecution, while the Ministry of the Interior and Safety named the SCIO. On this, President Lee concluded, "Since the SCIO is responsible for investigative functions, it is appropriate for the Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) to file complaints with the SCIO," while also agreeing on the need to refine the system.
◇The core is "investigative capacity"… "An inevitable three-year gap"
The core issue is investigative capacity. Legal circles worry that if investigation and indictment are mechanically separated, the ability to uncover the full picture of economic crimes such as collusion could be weakened.
Until now, the prosecution has played the role of supplementing evidence through investigations following Korea Fair Trade Commission (FTC) inquiries and referring cases to trial. In contrast, going forward, with the SCIO handling investigations and the Office of Public Prosecution handling only indictments, this consolidation link could be severed.
Kim Hee-gyun, a professor at the University of Seoul School of Law, said, "Investigations into economic and corruption crimes require a high level of expertise and experience," adding, "With prosecutors excluded, it will not be easy for SCIO investigators to handle cases independently." He added, "If prosecutors' advice and cooperation are not guaranteed, the existing efficient investigative framework could collapse."
Personnel is also a variable. Most incumbent prosecutors prefer the Office of Public Prosecution, which has no investigative authority, making large-scale transfers to the SCIO unlikely. In a survey conducted by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in Nov. last year, nearly 8 out of 10 prosecutors preferred to work at the Office of Public Prosecution, while the share hoping to work at the SCIO did not reach even 1%.
Lee Chang-hyun, a professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies School of Law, said, "If few prosecutors move to the SCIO, a loss of investigative power will be inevitable for a considerable period," forecasting, "It will be difficult to perform its role properly for at least three years."
◇Limits cited even with "joint investigations as a stopgap"
These concerns were shared at the Cabinet meeting. President Lee emphasized, "For complex, high-difficulty cases like drugs, international crimes, and financial crimes, we will need to respond even in the form of joint investigations." Minister of the Interior and Safety Yoon Ho-jung also said, "We will secure sufficient personnel for the SCIO," while noting, "The prosecution needs to send many personnel."
Some also point out that separating investigation and indictment could create limits in responding at trial. A prosecution official said, "Even when there is a confession in a collusion case, maintaining the indictment is only possible by precisely securing physical evidence such as KakaoTalk or email through compulsory searches," adding, "If investigation and indictment are separated, this work could become more difficult."