Criminal law scholars nationwide expressed concern over a Criminal Procedure Act amendment centered on abolishing prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority, saying they "express serious concern about the manner of 'reform' that pushes through a change to the Criminal Procedure Act, which affects everyone, in 'blitz fashion' without sufficient deliberation."
On the 30th, 62 criminal law scholars nationwide, including Professor Ko Myung-su of Seoul National University, issued a statement saying, "Issues of prosecutorial reform and supplementary investigation authority should be decided by the legal principles of judicial procedure, not the logic of political engineering."
They added, "Separating investigation and indictment must not mean severing investigation from indictment," and noted, "Even if the authority over investigation and indictment is separated, prosecutorial control over investigations must be maintained."
They continued, "Prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority must be maintained as a means to oversee and supplement police investigations," and added, "Prosecutorial investigation commands, supplementary investigations, and full-case transfers should be reconsidered as methods to control police investigations."
They further pointed out, "If restoring the investigation command authority is impossible, supplementary investigations must be allowed as a second-best option, and full-case transfers should be carried out to ensure the completeness of supplementary investigations," adding, "The right to demand only supplementary investigation cannot effectively control police investigations."
They also argued that concerns that leaving prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority intact could turn the Public Prosecution Office back into the old prosecution service cannot justify abolishing that authority. They explained that allowing prosecutors to conduct supplementary investigations only in some cases where the prosecution initiated the investigation differs from the past, when the prosecution abused investigative power through opening and closing investigations.
The scholars said, "While it cannot be said there is no risk at all of abusing supplementary investigation authority, this should be controlled by other institutional measures, such as limiting investigative personnel within the Public Prosecution Office," and added, "A full abolition of prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority is not the only answer to curbing prosecutorial abuse, and the harms arising from it are greater."
They went on to explain, "Prosecutors' investigation commands over special judicial police should continue," adding, "Special judicial police are not institutions with the expertise to be delegated 'judicial' duties, but administrative officials who handle investigation-related tasks only in very exceptional cases."
Lastly, they pointed out, "The investigation process is the first stage of the judicial criminal procedure," and added, "Therefore, pending issues such as prosecutorial reform and supplementary investigation authority should be decided by the legal principles of judicial procedure, not by political interests."
Meanwhile, the Criminal Procedure Act amendment passed the bill review subcommittee and the full session of The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee. It is scheduled to be introduced at the plenary session this afternoon.