Legal Experts Back Prosecution Office's Supplementary Investigation Powers; Public Split

A survey report shows 45.4% of South Koreans believe the proposed Public Prosecution Office should be granted supplementary investigation powers following prosecutorial reform. In-depth surveys of legal professionals and police found more than half support granting such powers.

The Prosecution Reform Task Force under the Prime Minister's Office released survey results on public and expert perceptions of prosecutorial reform on January 27. The public survey was conducted online with 4,000 respondents from December 17 last year to January 25 this year. In-depth interviews were also conducted with 193 legal professionals, including judges, prosecutors, police, special judicial police, and prosecution investigators.

Among general respondents, 24.5% said Public Prosecution Office prosecutors should be allowed to conduct direct supplementary investigations. Another 20.9% supported limited direct supplementary investigation powers. Meanwhile, 34.2% opposed both direct supplementary investigations and the right to request them.

Legal professionals showed stronger support than the general public. Among 15 judges surveyed, 80% favored granting supplementary investigation powers. Support reached 73.1% among 26 prosecutors, 75% among 20 lawyers, and 79.2% among 24 law professors. Even 62.5% of eight police investigators surveyed supported allowing such powers.

Judge A said granting supplementary investigation powers would "prevent delays from cases bouncing between prosecution and police and enable efficient processing." Judge B noted "checks on potential politicization of police are also necessary." However, Judge C warned the powers "could be abused as a tool for maintaining prosecutorial power depending on the administration."

Prosecutor D stated that "accurate judgment is impossible from documents alone—hearing directly from suspects and victims is necessary to uncover the substantive truth."

Lawyers cited needs for quasi-judicial control over police investigations and compensating for police's insufficient legal knowledge. Some opposed, arguing recognition of supplementary investigation powers would effectively negate the separation of investigation and indictment functions.

Police investigators also expressed mixed views, with some supporting checks on police and preventing criminals from being released due to flawed investigations, while others warned of prosecutorial power expansion.

Most legal professionals opposed police's non-referral decision authority granted after the 2021 investigation power adjustment. Opposition reached 92.3% among prosecutors, 79.2% among law professors, 73.3% among judges, and 60% among lawyers. Only police investigators showed 62.5% support.

Legal professionals expressed concerns about judicial oversight blind spots, public harm, procedural delays, and lack of accountability. Interviewees noted non-referral decisions are often poorly documented, victims may suffer without prosecutorial oversight, and complex appeal procedures burden citizens.

To address these issues, legal professionals suggested restoring full case referral and strengthening judicial oversight. Full case referral—requiring police to send all investigated cases to prosecution regardless of outcome—was abolished during the Moon Jae-in administration in 2021.

Regarding the prosecution's planned division into the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and Public Prosecution Office, most current prosecutors and investigators expressed pessimism. Among 26 prosecutors, only 3.8% said they were "somewhat hopeful," while 34.6% were "somewhat concerned" and 53.8% were "very concerned." All seven prosecution investigators surveyed expressed concern, with 37.5% "somewhat concerned" and 62.5% "very concerned."