On the 23rd of last month, a legislative hearing is being held at the Eroom Center in Yeouido, Seoul, for the establishment of a serious crime investigation office to completely separate the prosecution’s investigation and prosecution. News 1
Recently, controversy has arisen over a new bill to be established by the Severe Crime Investigation Office (heavy water administration). Democratic Party lawmakers emphasizing reform of the prosecution, submitted to the National Assembly on the 8th of last month, the bill on the establishment and operation of the Severe Crime Investigation Office. The main goal is to remove the product and transfer it to the heavy water office, which is a separate organization. This bill presupposes the resolution of the Prosecutor’s Office Act Abolition Act and the Public Prosecutors’ Office, so if passed, the Prosecutors’ Office will be divided into the Heavy Water Office and the Public Prosecutors Office. The bill also redesigned the investigative structure to redesign the investigation structure to redesign the power of mutual checks and balances, as various cases of abuse of authority and corruption and corruption are occurring due to excessive concentration of power in the prosecution. Under the principle of separation, it is necessary to ensure fairness and reliability for the investigation.’
It is true that reform is necessary because the prosecution has monopolized the power of investigation and prosecution. However, following the launch of the Ministry of Public Affairs and the adjustment of the power of prosecutors, the new bill of the Heavy Water Agency goes beyond the’prosecution reform’ and corresponds to the level of’dissolution of the prosecution’. It is questionable whether to increase the trust you have.
Above all, it is obvious that the establishment of the Heavy Water Office will weaken the national penal rights for serious crimes. In the situation where the investigation and prosecution have been separated for general cases through the adjustment of the prosecutor’s and light-investigative powers, this year’s heavy water administration bill has the investigative function of the prosecutors’ office on six major crimes, including corruption, economy, public officials, election, defense industry, and major catastrophe. Separation of the right to prosecution is required, which will make effective punishment for serious crimes difficult.
For many years, I have participated in the prosecution’s investigation and prosecution of important crimes in the case evaluation committee of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, and the review process to determine the error of the prosecutors throughout the process of maintaining prosecution. Most of the cases reviewed here are corruption crimes, election crimes, defense crimes, etc. They belonged to the six major crimes. There were some cases where unreasonable investigations or prosecutions were made among the cases subject to criticism, but there were many cases of innocence due to insufficient evidence securing or lack of prosecution in the process of maintaining prosecution. Of course, it is true that the prosecution’s power is powerful, but the situation changes when it goes to trial. In particular, in the courts of convictions for important crimes, the prosecution rather than bribery crimes, election crimes, where it is difficult to secure material evidence, and economic crimes that require complex economic analysis and rigorous confrontation, as large law firms have a superior personal and physical advantage over the prosecution. In many cases, it is insufficient. The retribution of a serious crime is possible only when the meticulous and consistent investigation, prosecution, and prosecution maintenance are organically combined.
Of course, it is also reasonable to argue that the prosecution should be decided from a more objective perspective by separating the subject of the investigation and the prosecution. However, this may be partially possible through system improvement, for example, in the case of serious crimes, such as having the prosecutor who exercise the authority to prosecute the investigation in his own name and take responsibility.
What the people need now is not to dismantle the prosecution, but to reform into a fair and effective prosecutor. The reform of prosecutors promoted by the ruling party should not be a reform apart from the people who intensify genetic innocence and non-guilty.
Joo-Young Kim Attorney, Seoul National University Law School Visiting Professor
News directly edited by the Hankook Ilbo can also be viewed on Naver.
