At a debate hosted by the People Power Party titled "The Investigative Gap Revealed by the Jang Yoon-gi Case and the Need for Supplementary Investigation Power," a call emerged that "supplementary investigation power should not be recklessly abolished, and instead a system is needed to check against arbitrary judgments."
Kim Jin-ju (a pseudonym), the victim of the "Busan spinning kick case," attended the debate held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on the 14th. "Having another agency verify once more the judgments made at the investigation stage (by prosecutors and police) should not be optional but a mandatory step," she said. Kim spoke from behind a partition set up in one corner of the meeting room to avoid revealing her identity.
"This proposition, discussed while excluding crime victims who are the core parties involved, cannot be divided into for and against in the first place," Kim said. "While the same arguments have been fought over like a tug-of-war for a year, victims are suffering from ping-pong investigations and capable prosecutors are leaving."
She continued, "Even when I go to provide advice on prosecution reform, discussions still go back and forth on for and against without establishing any measures. Whatever we do, right now we should be discussing how to protect victims."
She added, "If political investigations are the problem, making legislation related to that alone would be sufficient. Abolishing an agency does not make common sense."
Kim also displayed the jeans she was wearing at the time of the incident to emphasize the importance of supplementary investigation. "It was the same evidence at both the police and prosecution stages," she said. "Yet the fact that some could not find it while someone else did can itself be proof that supplementary investigation power is needed."
The "Busan spinning kick case," which occurred in 2022, was judged as simple assault at the police stage, but the conclusion was overturned through prosecution's supplementary investigation, which revealed circumstances of a crime intended for sexual assault. At the time, prosecutors found the perpetrator's DNA inside the jeans Kim was wearing and judged the case not as simple assault but as a sexual assault crime.
Kim Se-hee, an attorney at TheKim Law Firm who was the prosecutor in charge of the case, stressed at the debate, "The substantive truth of a case cannot be discovered through initial investigation alone. It is not a matter of who investigates better; investigation is something done by the police, the prosecution, and even through the trial process."
"Why Remove the Double Shield?"...Why Is Supplementary Investigation Power Needed?
Experts who attended the debate commonly raised issues including the need for double verification, the limits of the supplementary investigation request right, the gap in victim relief, and the risk of concentrated investigative power, pointing to structural problems in the Democratic Party's prosecution reform plan.
Kim Jae-ryeon, representative attorney at Onsesang Law Firm, argued, "The debate over abolishing prosecutors' supplementary investigation power should not start from demonizing prosecutors, nor should it start from incapacitating the police. The center of this debate should start from whether it is a system that genuinely aligns with victim protection and the realization of judicial justice."
She particularly countered, "For victims, both the police and prosecution are shields. When you can use two shields, is there any reason to throw one away?" She continued, "Prosecutors' power lies in finding the insufficient parts of cases that have completed initial investigation, conducting supplementary investigation, indicting, and punishing perpetrators. As a result, realizing judicial justice and protecting victims' rights and interests is their power."
Choi Chang-ho, attorney at Jeongron Law Firm, pointed out, "This revision of the Criminal Procedure Act violates the state's obligation to protect fundamental rights and due process, and infringes on the people's right to make statements. Is a system change that can only bring disadvantages to victims truly the direction of legislation that the state should pursue for its people?"
Attorney Choi also pointed out that "abolishing supplementary investigation power" is a prescription that sidesteps the core of the problem of prosecutors abusing investigative power. "There are problems with the prosecution too. The first is the president's personnel authority, and the second is the special investigation division's self-initiated investigation," he said. "The current problem with supplementary investigation power (abolition) is a problem of the criminal division."
Because prosecutorial personnel authority is concentrated in the president, investigative independence could be undermined in power-related cases, and the special investigation division's self-initiated investigation is also cited as a cause of controversy over abuse of investigative power. However, if supplementary investigation power is abolished, the institutional safety net to complement investigative errors in violent crimes such as murder or sexual offenses could disappear, meaning the focus of prosecution reform goes astray.
Regarding arguments raised in some quarters to strengthen the supplementary investigation request right, concerns emerged that side effects from "case ping-pong" would follow. There is a possibility of evidence damage and expanded harm to victims while cases go back and forth between the prosecution and police during the investigation supplementation process.
Kim Se-hee, attorney at TheKim Law Firm, said, "Typically, when supplementary investigation is requested for about 10 items, only about three or four are carried out before the case is transferred. The prosecutor, unable to indict based on the current investigation situation, again requests supplementary investigation for the remaining seven items, and while this situation repeats, problems of case delay or shifting responsibility arise."
She added, "This situation cannot be dismissed as solely the police's responsibility. As the prosecution's investigation scope narrows, all cases must undergo initial investigation by the police, but the police are being assigned a number of cases that is physically impossible."
The People Power Party has also decided to pursue as its party line a separate Criminal Procedure Act revision bill containing content that maintains prosecutors' supplementary investigation power and complements the police's case closure authority, and has entered the final stages of work.
Dissent Within Ruling Party Too...Bill Filed to 'Maintain Exceptions' for Supplementary Investigation Power
Voices within the Democratic Party opposing unconditional abolition of supplementary investigation power continue to emerge. While the party has already confirmed the abolition of prosecutors' supplementary investigation power as its party line and a related revision bill has been filed and discussion has begun at the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee, another Criminal Procedure Act revision bill was filed to maintain prosecutors' supplementary investigation power limited to cases involving vulnerable groups such as sexual crimes and child abuse.
Democratic Party Rep. Hong Ki-won filed a Criminal Procedure Act revision bill on the 14th to maintain prosecutors' supplementary investigation power limited to crimes against the socially vulnerable such as children and stalking, livelihood-infringing crimes such as voice phishing and fraud, and cases with tight processing deadlines such as those with imminent statutes of limitations, and to have all such cases transferred to prosecutors.
Rep. Hong explained, "The reason President Lee Jae-myung, who was the biggest victim of prosecutorial power abuse, also spoke of the need for exceptional supplementary investigation is clear. Protecting the people and creating a criminal justice system in which victims are not wronged is the direction of prosecution reform we should pursue, and this revision bill will be a minimum safeguard."
This is the first time that opposition has been publicly expressed through a bill filing since the party leadership announced its policy of fully abolishing supplementary investigation power. Eleven lawmakers, including Rep. Hong as well as Reps. Ko Min-jung, Kwak Sang-eon, Kim Nam-hee, and Moon Jin-seok, participated in the bill.
