Home > Opinion > Columns

Who will bear the fallout from abolishing the prosecution?

Published: 24 Mar. 2026, 00:02

Chang Se-jeong

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

As the ruling Democratic Party (DP) pushed through the so-called three judicial reform bills despite lingering constitutional concerns, Chief Justice Jo Hee-de and court presidents voiced rare public opposition. Yet the governing bloc, which controls both the executive and legislative branches, responded not with dialogue but with personal attacks and calls for the chief justice to resign. Judges aligned with progressive judicial groups have remained largely silent, even as concerns mount over the erosion of judicial independence. With the passage of a constitutional complaint system allowing appeals against court rulings, the balance of authority between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court appears to be shifting. Critics warn this could create a de facto system of repeated appeals, raising questions about who will bear the cost and burden.

Jung Chung-rae, leader of the Democratic Party, greets Kwon Yang-sook after paying respects at the grave of former President Roh Moo-hyun in Bongha Village, Gimhae, South Gyeongsang, on Jan. 1. [DEMOCRATIC PARTY/NEWS1]

Following a largely ineffective filibuster by the opposition, the DP forced through legislation establishing new investigative and prosecutorial bodies. The prosecution service, which has operated for 78 years, is set to be abolished in October and replaced by separate agencies for prosecution and major crimes investigation. Cho Kuk, who has long claimed to be a victim of prosecutorial overreach, welcomed the move as a symbolic end to what he described as “prosecutorial dictatorship.”

If anything, the silence among prosecutors has been more striking than that of judges. Whether it reflects a sense of collective responsibility for past excesses or a growing culture of risk aversion, the lack of resistance is notable. Even as the institution faces dissolution, there has been little visible dissent. Some observers argue that the controversial actions of former President Yoon Suk Yeol, a former prosecutor himself, contributed to the erosion of public trust and ultimately weakened the case for maintaining the prosecution’s investigative authority.

DP leader Jung Chung-rae framed the reform in historic terms, recalling the death of former President Roh Moo-hyun during a corruption investigation involving his family. By invoking that episode, he suggested that prosecutorial reform was long overdue. Critics, however, question whether such references reflect a broader sense of political grievance rather than a balanced effort at institutional reform. They argue that if reform is driven by retaliation rather than public interest, it risks undermining its legitimacy.

The remarks drew criticism from Kwak Sang-eon, Roh’s son-in-law, who warned against using the former president’s legacy for political gain. He said invoking Roh for symbolic purposes amounted to disrespect and risked reducing him to a political tool. Despite the backlash, Jung reiterated his stance during a party leadership meeting in Bongha Village on Monday, saying the reform had finally reached a decisive stage under President Lee Jae Myung. He argued that prosecutorial arrogance had persisted for more than two decades since Roh’s 2003 televised dialogue with prosecutors.

According to party officials, Roh’s widow, Kwon Yang-sook, expressed emotional support for the reform after being briefed privately. The DP sees the changes as a necessary break from past practices in which prosecutors wielded excessive power. Nonetheless, concerns remain about unintended consequences. Korea’s criminal justice system, often cited as a model even by countries such as China, is now set for a fundamental overhaul.

While reform may address longstanding problems, the potential disruption raises serious questions. If abolishing the prosecution reduces accountability for political actors and criminals while leaving victims more vulnerable, responsibility for the outcome will be difficult to assign. Justice sometimes requires decisive action, but eliminating an institution out of resentment may not resolve underlying issues. In the long run, acknowledging differences and seeking coexistence may prove more constructive than pursuing retribution.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.