Managing partners of Korea's major law firms have advised that the government and ruling party's proposed changes to the criminal justice system, including abolishing the prosecution service, should prioritize "stabilization" over "speed." They warned that altering supplementary investigation powers without proper deliberation could create confusion.
Seoul Economic Daily surveyed managing partners from six major law firms — Bae, Kim & Lee; Kim & Chang; Shin & Kim; Yulchon; Yoon & Yang; and Lee & Ko (listed in Korean alphabetical order) — on January 21 regarding changes to the criminal justice system, including the fate of supplementary investigation powers and the proposed "law distortion crime," as well as the direction Korea's legal community — judges, prosecutors, and lawyers — should pursue.
In the anonymous survey, the respondents unanimously called for caution regarding the criminal justice system changes being pursued by the government and ruling party. They emphasized that once Korea's criminal justice framework is altered, reversing course would be difficult, and poor design could cause confusion, making it essential to ensure predictability and sustainability.
On supplementary investigation powers, the respondents strongly advocated for retention rather than abolition. "If prosecutors responsible for indictments can only request supplementary investigations, case processing could be delayed," said a managing partner from one firm. "In extreme cases, prosecutors might decline to indict cases that clearly warrant prosecution, citing inadequate supplementary investigations, which risks outcomes contrary to justice."
Another managing partner noted, "If the proposed Public Prosecution Office only holds supplementary investigation request powers and prosecution authority, effective mutual checks between the office and the police or Serious Crime Investigation Agency would be difficult." The respondent suggested that "if unlimited expansion of the prosecution office's investigative scope becomes problematic, limiting supplementary investigation powers based on the identity of criminal facts could be considered."
The respondents also expressed opposition to the so-called "law distortion crime" being promoted primarily by the Democratic Party of Korea. The proposed legislation would punish judges and prosecutors who deliberately distort the law or manipulate facts during trials and investigations. Respondents expressed concern that vague concepts such as "manipulating facts" or "improperly applying laws" violate the principle of legal clarity and could undermine judicial independence.
"When investigative authority is arbitrarily interpreted due to legal ambiguity, it is currently punished under charges such as abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, or obstruction of business," one managing partner said. "The law distortion crime would consolidate these charges into one, potentially becoming a channel for abuse or arbitrary exercise of investigative powers."
Another managing partner emphasized, "The law distortion crime violates the principle of clarity, which is crucial in criminal punishment. This could lead to indiscriminate accusations and complaints against judicial institutions, ultimately undermining judicial independence."
When asked about the direction Korea's legal community should pursue going forward, the respondents pointed to "restoring public trust through enhanced judicial independence." They particularly advised increasing transparency in decision-making processes to reduce unnecessary misunderstandings — a response that appears to reflect awareness of various incidents arising from judicial decisions following the December 3 martial law declaration. The respondents also emphasized that judges, prosecutors, and lawyers must strictly self-regulate to strengthen independence and political neutrality.
