The first round of special appointments at South Korea's Serious Crimes Investigation Agency has drawn criticism over what critics call a hiring process conducted in the dark. Rejected applicants were not told why they failed, and those set to be appointed at the fifth grade or higher were instructed to begin resigning from their current posts without even being told where they would work. Legal community observers say the lack of transparency has deepened distrust among applicants and is hampering staffing, with only about 200 people applying in the second round of special appointments.
According to legal sources on the 21st, the agency's launch preparation team announced first-round special appointment results for investigators at the sixth grade and below on the 16th and for those at the fifth grade and above on the 18th, without giving rejected applicants specific reasons for their failure. While the earlier recruitment notice specified qualification requirements and disqualifying conditions, the team did not explain what criteria it used to select successful candidates.
The preparation team had initially set two requirements: that applicants be employees of the Prosecution Service as of Oct. 1, 2026, and that they not fall under the disqualifying conditions in Article 19 of the law establishing the agency. That law bars from investigator positions anyone disqualified under Article 33 of the State Public Officials Act, anyone sentenced to imprisonment or heavier penalties, and anyone removed from office through impeachment within the past five years.
A legal source familiar with the Prosecution Service said appointment decisions were supposed to weigh position, career history and expertise. "But the actual results were different," the source said. "Even investigators recognized for their expertise in various fields were rejected in large numbers despite having no disqualifying conditions." Another legal source said it was hard to understand the volume of rejections given that the agency would struggle to fill its quota even by appointing every first-round applicant. "Word is spreading that some with past disciplinary records or drunk-driving histories were appointed, which is raising doubts about the selection criteria," the source said.
Also contentious is the instruction for those set to be appointed at the fifth grade or higher to resign before being told their specific assignments. The preparation team is understood to have told them to proceed promptly with resignation procedures according to guidance from their current institutions. Prosecutors moving to the agency cannot be appointed while still serving, so they must step down from their existing posts through voluntary resignation.
The problem is that prospective appointees must begin resignation procedures without knowing where they will work or what duties they will handle. Whether they can be assigned to their preferred region and whether they will hold a post that makes use of their investigative experience and expertise are central to deciding whether to move to the agency, yet that information is not being provided.
A prosecution official who passed the special appointment process said, "They tell us to start the process of quitting as prosecutors, but they won't tell us where we will work or what we will do." The official added: "Some want to confirm their assignments before making a final decision on whether to move, but there is no room to choose." Another prosecution official said that being posted to a provincial location rather than a preferred one would require preparations such as relocating, but that they were not even being guaranteed time for that.
The second round of special appointment applications, accepted from the 15th to the 20th of this month, drew just 201 applicants. Considering that 615 of the 1,761 first-round applicants withdrew, the combined first- and second-round total comes to about 1,300. That is barely more than half of the roughly 2,500 positions to be filled through special appointments, excluding external recruits.
Legal community observers say the opaque personnel process is discouraging further applications. Concerns are growing that a soft landing after the agency's launch may prove difficult, following delays in selecting its head and now shortfalls in staffing. One legal source said the agency, which is being launched by bringing together personnel from different organizations such as the Prosecution Service and the police, could be saddled with internal conflict over an opaque personnel process before it even begins integrating as an organization.
