This file photo taken in January 2026 shows the buildings housing the Supreme Prosecutors Office, the Seoul High Prosecutors Office and the Seoul Central District Prosecutors Office in Seocho District, southern Seoul, from left.YONHAP
Kim Jae-ryeon
The author is the chief attorney at On·Sesang Law Firm.
In 2020, the redistribution of investigative authority between the police and prosecutors led to what became known as “complete deprivation of prosecutorial investigative powers,” eliminating prosecutors’ authority to open investigations on their own. Prosecutors, however, retained the ability to supplement cases initially handled by the police when legal issues remained unresolved or evidence had not been sufficiently secured. They may conduct supplementary investigations themselves or ask the police to do so, a practice commonly known as prosecutors’ supplementary investigative power.
The goal of those seeking abolition is to prevent prosecutors from exercising that authority directly.
If investigators must revisit a crime scene and gather more evidence, police follow-up may be more effective. But when victims must be questioned again, legal issues have been overlooked or the police have pursued the wrong direction, it is more efficient for prosecutors to complete supplementary investigations and proceed with an indictment.
As legal professionals, prosecutors bring offenders before the courts and participate in trials to ensure appropriate punishment. Through that process, they seek to realize justice and protect victims’ rights. Abolishing supplementary investigative authority would effectively reduce prosecutors to figureheads unable to carry out their duties. Supplementary investigations are a normal mechanism designed to protect victims and uphold justice.
Supporters of abolition argue that cases should instead be sent back to the police and prosecutors should merely request additional inquiries.
That argument, however, leaves victims out of the equation. While cases shuttle between the prosecution and the police, crucial evidence may disappear and victims’ suffering only deepens. Politicians advocating abolition appear to have forgotten those harmed by crime.
The names invoked to justify ending supplementary investigative authority all belong to powerful figures. Are ordinary citizens and victims to be sacrificed for their sake? Politicians may fear prosecutorial authority, but most people do not. Victims care little whether the police or prosecutors exercise legal powers. They simply want the truth uncovered, offenders punished and victims protected.
Looking at the current situation, one is tempted to conclude that this country belongs not to its citizens but to politicians and those in power.
Advocates of abolition insist that they are acting on behalf of the public. Yet Gallup polling found that 61 percent of respondents support maintaining prosecutors’ supplementary investigative powers. Politicians are, in effect, appropriating the name of “the people.”
A sober assessment raises another question: Would abolishing supplementary investigative authority truly benefit suspects? Under the Democratic Party (DP)’s proposed revisions to the Criminal Procedure Act, emergency arrests would require only notification to prosecutors. Without prosecutorial oversight, the rights of suspects could be infringed.
Moreover, if direct supplementary investigations disappear and cases endlessly circulate between agencies, suspects without money or influence will find it harder to secure a prompt resolution. For ordinary citizens, abolition could open the gates of a legal nightmare.
The DP is attempting to adopt abolition as a party position. Although dissenting voices exist within the party, they are being drowned out by threats from their hardline supporters. They argue that prosecutorial power must be completely stripped away. But why are they so determined to weaken prosecutors? Is it because they do not want that authority turned against them?
The power of prosecutors lies in their ability to investigate wrongdoers and ensure punishment.
I do not wish to believe that the governing majority is calling for abolition to protect offenders. One thing, however, seems clear: the DP is not standing with victims. When a politician was accused of sexual violence committed through abuse of authority, party supporters displayed banners defending the accused, provoking outrage from the victim.
That same party is now pressing ahead with abolition. Whose side is it on? One cannot help but ask whom Korea’s politicians serve and what purpose they believe they fulfill. It is exhausting to live in a country where arguments grounded in common sense are crushed by the force of numbers.
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.
