As prosecutors leave in growing numbers, debate is intensifying over whether stripping their remaining investigative powers will deepen case backlogs and weaken oversight.
Democratic Party spokespeople brief reporters on discussions from a closed-door general meeting of party lawmakers at the National Assembly on July 24, during which lawmakers approved as the party's official position a proposed amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act that would prohibit prosecutors from conducting direct investigations, including supplementary investigations.YONHAP
Moon Byung-joo
The author is an editor of social affairs at the JoongAng Ilbo.
I recently heard from a prosecutor I had not heard from in a long time. He was writing to say he was beginning a new career as a lawyer. Never known for political partisanship, he had been regarded as one of the prosecution's brightest talents, serving at both the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office. His only public appearance as a prosecutor came in November of last year, when reports said he objected to the decision not to pursue an appeal in the Daejang-dong case.
Such news once surfaced mainly during personnel reshuffles. Now it arrives year-round. The number of prosecutors leaving, which hovered around 140 annually between 2022 and 2024, climbed to 175 last year. About 80 had already resigned by the end of last month. Applications from incumbent prosecutors seeking to become judges also rose from 48 last year to 68 this year.
The exodus is largely driven by the October launch of the Public Prosecution Service and the Serious Crimes Investigation Office, which will replace the Prosecutors' Office. Prosecutors must choose between the two organizations and work under a system that separates investigation from indictment, unlike the current structure. Many hope to join the prosecution service and retain the authority to conduct investigations before filing charges by reviewing cases handled by the investigation office, police or special judicial police officers. If the Democratic Party's (DP) proposal is adopted, however, even that limited authority could disappear.
Public opinion points in a different direction. A Gallup Korea survey found that 61 percent of respondents supported preserving prosecutors' investigative authority to remedy inadequate police investigations and provide oversight. A survey by the New Reform Party produced a similar result at 65.5 percent. Even 67 percent of respondents in a poll of members of the Lawyers for a Democratic Society, a group long associated with prosecutorial reform, favored keeping the power.
Recent cases help explain why. Prosecutors' reinvestigation of the murder of a high school girl in Gwangju by Jang Yun-gi uncovered evidence that police had allegedly downplayed or concealed. In the Busan "roundhouse kick" case, in which a woman was assaulted, prosecutors' DNA reanalysis led to the addition of attempted rape and murder charges. In another case involving the death of director Kim Chang-min after he was attacked in a restaurant, prosecutors reopened an investigation that police had determined was manslaughter, ultimately indicting suspects on murder charges.
Statistics tell the same story. Police decisions not to refer cases for prosecution increased from about 390,000 in 2021 to roughly 590,000 last year. During the same period, the number of cases ultimately prosecuted after prosecutors either conducted their own investigations or ordered police to reinvestigate more than doubled, from 528 to 1,130. Without that second review, many of those cases would likely have remained buried. Perhaps for that reason, not only Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho but also President Lee Jae Myung has publicly argued that the prosecution's investigative authority should remain available in exceptional circumstances.
Even so, those determined to abolish the power altogether seem driven by something resembling a phobia of prosecutors.
When Gyeonggi Gov. Choo Mi-ae criticized proposals within the DP to preserve a limited investigative authority for prosecutors, she warned they would revive "the most antidemocratic prosecutorial system." She argued that prosecutors in Germany and Japan do not conduct investigations. Legal experts, however, responded by citing criminal procedure laws and actual investigative practices in both countries that recognize prosecutorial investigative authority under certain circumstances.
At a National Assembly forum on July 16, one participant argued that supporters of prosecutorial investigations were merely waiting for a future change of government so the prosecution could regain its former powers and pursue political retaliation. Such reasoning assumes prosecutors would inevitably abuse their authority while also assuming that police, whose investigative powers have steadily expanded, would never do the same under a different administration. It reflects an excessive tendency to single out prosecutors as objects of fear.
There is no simple cure for a phobia, but psychologists recommend calm understanding and gradual exposure. In the 2015 book "Scared Stiff," author Sarah Latta argues that slowly confronting the feared object is often the most effective treatment. The debate over supplementary investigative authority should likewise focus on minimizing disruption as the Prosecutors' Office disappears. Only by calmly assessing how prosecutors have changed, what functions they still perform and what safeguards remain necessary can policymakers design an effective system. More than 100,000 unresolved case files are already piling up while experienced prosecutors continue to leave. Delayed justice is harming victims, and preventing future investigative failures like the Jang Yun-gi case will require more than fear. It will require overcoming our phobia of prosecutors.
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.
