The Supreme Court said that "supplementary measures must be prepared together to prevent side effects" regarding a Criminal Procedure Act amendment that would abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority. This is the first time the judiciary has expressed an opinion on a bill to abolish supplementary investigation authority.
According to People Power Party lawmaker Shin Dong-wook on the 12th, the National Court Administration recently submitted to the National Assembly its review opinion on the Criminal Procedure Act amendment led by Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Kim Yong-min and Rebuilding Korea Party lawmaker Park Eun-jung.
The amendment would completely abolish prosecutors' direct investigation authority and supplementary investigation authority, while maintaining only the authority to request supplementary investigation. It would also abolish prosecutors' authority to direct investigations of special judicial police officers and restrict prosecutors' direct warrant applications.
On this, the National Court Administration noted that it is "a matter of adjusting authority between investigative agencies, and the advantages and disadvantages arising from institutional change, as well as various views from the public and experts, should be closely examined in the National Assembly, with sufficient deliberation and review, and decided as a matter of legislative policy," but added, "that said, sufficient supplementary measures need to be prepared together to prevent possible side effects arising from institutional changes."
On the amendment to establish a public indictment review committee (public review committee) at each district court, it expressed an opinion of "further review." The committee would select 100 candidates from residents aged 20 or older within each district court's jurisdiction, and randomly chosen individuals would serve as Commissioners to deliberate and resolve the appropriateness of a prosecutor's decision to indict. If two-thirds or more of the committee members vote, they can decide whether to indict differently from the prosecutor's disposition.
The administration said, "Whether an indictment is appropriate can be properly controlled through trial after indictment, and through a request for adjudication in the case of a non-indictment decision."
It expressed support for the amendment introducing a conditional detention and release system at the investigation stage and for court detention, and for introducing a judge's pre-examination procedure for search and seizure warrants.
It said that, at the investigation stage, the conditional release system can contribute to the substantive realization of the presumption of innocence, the principle of non-detention investigation, and the trial-centered principle, and can overcome the limitation of only being able to make a binary decision between detention and non-detention.
The National Court Administration said, "It appears this can correct the mistaken perception that 'detention equals punishment' and resolve the abnormal situation in which the focus of criminal justice is concentrated at the warrant stage, while the main trial that truly matters fails to receive public attention," adding, "Most advanced countries have similar systems in their legislation."