The Democratic Party of Korea, which has seen internal disagreements erupt over abolishing prosecutors' supplementary investigation power, has begun making institutional adjustments to address side effects. As social concerns grow over a potential gap in investigations, the party has decided to respond, with plans to finalize whether to abolish the supplementary investigation power after internal deliberation next week. The People Power Party (PPP) has countered by proposing a separate amendment bill as its party line that would retain prosecutors' supplementary investigation power.
The National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee held the First Legislation Review Subcommittee at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on the 15th, discussing the Democratic Party's Criminal Procedure Act amendment task force (TF) proposal, bills by Democratic Party Rep. Kim Yong-min and Rebuilding Korea Party Rep. Kim Eun-jung, and a bill by Rebuilding Korea Party Rep. Cha Kyu-keun. The PPP, which has been boycotting standing committee schedules in protest of National Assembly reorganization negotiations, did not attend the meeting.
The subcommittee focused its discussions on measures to expand the objection and judicial review request systems. The bills by Reps. Kim Yong-min and Kim Eun-jung would expand the eligible parties for objections, currently limited to complainants under existing law, to include both complainants and accusers, and would also allow all complainants and accusers to file judicial review requests, which are currently permitted only for victims in certain abuse-of-authority cases. The aim is to broaden the procedures through which victims can challenge investigative agencies' decisions to close cases. Alongside this, a measure was also reviewed to expand the scope allowing courts to dismiss indictments when charges are brought through serious unlawful investigations or when prosecutorial discretion has been significantly infringed upon.
A bill by Rep. Hong Ki-won, proposed on the 14th of this month and centered on allowing supplementary investigation power on an exceptional basis, is expected to undergo consolidated review as early as the 16th. Full-scale discussions over whether to abolish the supplementary investigation power are also expected to gain momentum after the consolidated review. "Within the party, opinion is growing that we should gather members' collective views rather than pass it unconditionally," a Democratic Party official said. "We will collect each member's concerns at the next general assembly meeting."
By contrast, hardliners within the party continue to call for abolishing the supplementary investigation power. Rep. Choi Min-hee on the 15th referenced the bill allowing exceptions for supplementary investigation power on her social networking service (SNS), calling it "a bill to preserve prosecutorial investigation power, not one that leaves part of the supplementary investigation power in place." Supreme Council member Moon Jung-bok also stressed that "abolishing the supplementary investigation power is already a clear party line that the Democratic Party has declared before its members and the public."
PPP Launches Counter-Legislation: 'Retaining Supplementary Investigations, Checking Police Authority'
Meanwhile, the PPP on the 15th proposed the "Three Crime Victim Protection Acts" as its party line, including amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act, the Prosecution Agency Act, and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Act, in response to the Democratic Party's push for prosecution reform legislation.
The Criminal Procedure Act amendment proposed by the PPP focuses on retaining prosecutors' supplementary investigation power while strengthening checks on police authority. It specifies prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority and allows direct investigations only for crimes referred by police or transferred from the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), as well as crimes committed by judicial police officers and CIO officials. It also expanded the scope of cases subject to referral to prosecutors in order to limit police authority to close cases. This includes: cases where charges are recognized after a police officer's investigation; cases where a complainant or accuser files an objection to a decision not to refer; cases where police fail to comply with a prosecutor's request for ex officio re-investigation of a non-referral, resulting in a referral demand; and cases where a referral demand is made because corrective measures for the investigation process were not implemented.
The right to demand supplementary investigations was expanded to include not only existing police-referred cases but also CIO-transferred cases. The supplementary investigation period was specified as up to three months, and the deadline for requesting disciplinary action when police fail to conduct supplementary investigations was set at "within 30 days." In addition, provisions such as Article 255 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which specified prosecutors' existing right to withdraw indictments, were deleted to prevent prosecutors from arbitrarily withdrawing indictments or doing so under external pressure.
Kwak Kyu-taek, chairman of the PPP's legal advisory committee, said, "In line with opinions that a check is needed against police unilaterally closing cases, we significantly increased the scope of cases that police must refer to prosecutors."
He added, "For serious crimes such as the recent murder of a high school girl in Gwangju, we included provisions requiring judicial police officers to notify prosecutors when they begin an investigation and requiring prosecutors and judicial police officers to cooperate, so that prosecutors can be involved from the moment a judicial police officer initiates an investigation."
The amendments to the Prosecution Agency Act and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Act, proposed alongside the Criminal Procedure Act, also include a provision to delay their effective date by one year, from October 2 this year to October 2, 2027. The aim is to ensure sufficient social discussion precedes any overhaul of the criminal justice system.
