Prosecutorial Supplementary Investigation Power Divides National Assembly

The National Assembly is in turmoil over discussions to abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigation power. The ruling bloc is pushing to eliminate prosecutors' supplementary investigation power as part of "prosecutorial reform." In contrast, the opposition, including the People Power Party, argues for retaining prosecutors' supplementary investigation power, warning that if police investigative power grows excessively, protection of victims' rights and the completeness of investigations could weaken. With some within the ruling bloc also raising the view that certain supplementary investigation powers should be retained, the debate over the legislative direction continues.

In the past, prosecutors were criticized for holding excessive concentration of power by exercising both indictment and investigation authority. In particular, as controversies over selective investigations, targeted investigations, and excessive collateral investigations repeatedly arose in political and power-related cases, demands to reduce prosecutorial power grew, becoming the core backdrop of prosecutorial reform discussions. On the other hand, in cases such as the Busan roundhouse kick case and the Jang Yoon-gi case, some assess that prosecutors' supplementary investigations verified new evidence and facts, uncovering the substance of the cases and contributing to the restoration of victims' rights.

The Seoul Economic Daily will thoroughly examine the "abolition of supplementary investigation power" controversy, which has emerged as a key issue in politics ahead of the abolition of the Prosecution Service in October this year.

Busan Roundhouse Kick Case... The Verdict Changed by 'DNA Re-analysis'

The "Busan roundhouse kick case" is cited as a representative example in which a verdict was overturned after additional sexual assault charges were uncovered through the prosecution's DNA re-analysis. After the police investigation, the prosecution secured additional evidence and uncovered the substance of the crime.

The case involved a man surnamed A who chased and indiscriminately assaulted a woman in her 20s who was heading home in Seomyeon, Busan, in May 2022. A was initially indicted on attempted murder charges, but during the appellate trial, the prosecution's re-analysis of DNA on the victim's clothing additionally confirmed A's DNA, changing the nature of the case. Based on this, the prosecution added attempted rape-murder charges, which the appellate court accepted, sentencing A to 20 years in prison. The Supreme Court also confirmed the ruling.

Kim Se-hee, an attorney at The Kim Law Firm who was the prosecutor in charge of the case at the time, attended a debate hosted by the People Power Party on the 14th of this month and said, "When I reviewed the records, the only indication of sexual assault was that one phrase noting the zipper was down when the 119 rescue team found the victim." She added, "Seeing that phrase, I thought it could be a crime committed for the purpose of sexual violence." She continued, "As the investigating prosecutor, I was able to directly conduct supplementary investigation and pursue the parts necessary to prove intent for attempted murder."

At the time, no DNA testing had been conducted during the police investigation stage. Accordingly, Kim secured the underwear the victim had worn at the time of the incident and requested analysis from the National Forensic Service, but as the suspect's DNA was not detected, the first-instance court ultimately recognized only the attempted murder charge and sentenced A to 12 years in prison.

However, the situation was reversed on appeal. The prosecution additionally secured the jeans the victim had worn at the time of the incident and requested a precise DNA re-analysis. Kim said, "At first, the prosecution's opinion was not accepted even in the appellate trial, but as the case became known to the media through the victim's efforts, the court accepted the need for additional analysis."

As a result of conducting a more precise DNA analysis that made up for the failure of the first analysis, A's DNA was detected inside the jeans the victim had worn. The appellate court recognized this as key evidence and raised the sentence to 20 years in prison. Kim stressed, "It is not simply a matter of who investigates better," adding, "It is work done by humans, and with investigation, you cannot know the result until the police, the prosecution, and the trial are all finished."

Jang Yoon-gi Case... Suspicions Revealed After Prosecutorial Investigation

The recent Jang Yoon-gi case is also cited as a representative example in which the substance of the case was overturned through prosecutorial supplementary investigation. During the supplementary investigation, the prosecution secured additional evidence supporting that the case was a crime committed for the purpose of sexual assault. It then investigated signs that Jang Yoon-gi's father, a police captain surnamed Jang, destroyed evidence, and that the investigation team leader, a police captain surnamed Park, ordered the case to be downplayed and covered up, allowing suspicions of police collusion to be uncovered as well.

It also expanded the scope of transfer to the prosecution in order to limit the police's authority to close cases. These include: cases where charges are recognized after a police investigation; cases where a complainant or accuser files an objection to a non-transfer decision; and cases where the police fail to comply with a prosecutor's request for re-investigation by authority regarding a non-transfer decision, prompting a transfer request.

Regarding this, Kim Jae-ryeon, managing attorney at Onsesang Law Firm, argued on the 14th of this month, "There is no 100 percent perfect system among the systems that exist on this planet," adding, "Mutual checks and supplementation between institutions are needed." She continued, "Whether police or prosecution, if there are people who deviate from their inherent roles, institutional supplementation is needed to strictly discipline and punish them."

In particular, Kim stressed, "The police are not an incompetent organization, and the prosecution is not an organization that is only just," adding, "The debate over abolishing prosecutors' supplementary investigation power should not start from demonizing the prosecution, nor should it start from portraying the police as incompetent."

She then said, "Victims hope that both the police and the prosecution will investigate with their utmost abilities and punish the perpetrators," adding, "When you can use two shields, there is no reason to discard one."

Regarding the argument by some that strengthening prosecutors' authority to request supplementary investigation would suffice, she said, "While case records circulate between the prosecution and the police, evidence is destroyed and the victim's suffering intensifies," adding, "Retaining prosecutors' supplementary investigation power aligns with the protection of victims' rights."

The National Office of Investigation's special investigation unit for "uncovering the truth of the Jang Yoon-gi case" at the Korean National Police Agency transferred the then-investigation team leader, a police captain surnamed Park, to the prosecution under detention, applying charges including destruction of evidence, dereliction of duty, and abuse of authority obstructing the exercise of rights. The Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office has extended the detention period of Jang Yoon-gi's father, a police captain surnamed Jang, and is continuing additional investigation.

From Retention to Abolition of Supplementary Investigation Power... Three Solutions Before the National Assembly

The National Assembly debate over prosecutors' supplementary investigation power continues along three lines, including compromise proposals, beyond the binary choice of "full abolition" and "full retention." However, the Democratic Party of Korea adopted a Criminal Procedure Act amendment centered on the full abolition of prosecutors' supplementary investigation power as its party position on this day, and plans to move forward with processing it at the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee as early as next week.

The amendment finalized by the Democratic Party reflects concerns raised within the party over gaps in victim protection, containing measures to expand the scope of transferring crimes against socially vulnerable groups to the prosecution and to make prosecutors' authority to request supplementary investigation substantive. The core elements are: prohibiting prosecutors' direct investigation and supplementary investigation in principle; strengthening victim protection; and mutual checks among investigative agencies.

Victim protection mechanisms were also strengthened. Five crimes targeting socially vulnerable groups—sex crimes, sex crimes against children, stalking, abuse of the disabled, and elder abuse—will be transferred to the prosecution through individual laws, and the victim's right to state opinions and the prosecutor's right to hear opinions will be newly established.

The bill proposed by Democratic Party lawmaker Hong Ki-won prohibits prosecutorial supplementary investigation in principle but leaves prosecutorial investigation open as an exception for crimes against socially vulnerable groups such as sexual violence and child abuse, livelihood-infringing crimes such as voice phishing, and cases nearing detention or statute of limitations deadlines.

In an interview with the Seoul Economic Daily, Hong said, "I proposed an alternative because of concerns that fully abolishing supplementary investigation power could increase harm in cases involving socially vulnerable groups or livelihood cases."

Last week, in response to the Democratic Party's push for prosecutorial reform legislation, the People Power Party proposed the "Three Crime Victim Protection Laws" as its party position, including amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act, the Public Prosecution Office Act, and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Act.

The Criminal Procedure Act amendment proposed by the People Power Party focused on retaining prosecutors' supplementary investigation power while strengthening mechanisms to check police authority. It specified prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority and allowed direct investigation only for crimes transferred by the police or sent by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), as well as crimes committed by judicial police officers and officials belonging to the CIO.