Prosecutors set to lose supplementary investigation powers — and police aren't happy either

A ruling-party-led bill to abolish prosecutors' authority to order supplementary investigations into cases referred by police cleared a subcommittee of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Tuesday evening. To address concerns that the change would leave police investigative powers unchecked, the bill requires police to complete any supplementary investigation requested by prosecutors within two months. A separate measure is also being pursued that would require police to refer all crimes targeting socially vulnerable groups.

When details of the proposed Criminal Procedure Act amendments became known Wednesday, pushback emerged within the police force, with officers calling the legislation "disconnected from investigative reality."

The bill adds a proviso to the existing clause — which requires judicial police officers to comply with a prosecutor's supplementary investigation request "without delay unless there is a justifiable reason" — setting a one-month deadline from the date the request is received. The deadline can be extended by an additional month if the prosecutor accepts the reason given. Prosecutors may also demand that police complete a supplementary investigation more quickly depending on the urgency of the case, and may designate a metropolitan or provincial police agency — a higher-level body than the local station handling the case — to carry out the supplementary investigation.

The one-month baseline deadline drew sharp criticism from within the force. "It seems like whoever drafted this has no understanding of actual practice," a detective said. "If the request is simple, fine — but when it involves seizing additional evidence or conducting a confrontation between suspects and witnesses, one month is absolutely not enough."

The bill creates a new provision recognizing prosecutors' right to verify facts, allowing them to interview suspects and other parties involved in a case, or to receive written materials, to establish facts needed to bring charges. However, any statements prosecutors obtain through this process carry no evidentiary weight at trial.

One investigative officer was skeptical of the distinction. "It lets prosecutors directly meet and question suspects, complainants and other parties involved — there's no coercive power, but in practice it's not much different from an actual investigation," the officer said.

The ruling party also put forward an alternative to address concerns that abolishing prosecutors' supplementary investigation authority could weaken victim protection. Under the proposal, police would be required by law to refer all so-called crimes against socially vulnerable groups — including child abuse, domestic violence and sex crimes — to the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, set to launch in October. Critics say this runs counter to the agency's founding purpose.

The agency was originally established to investigate six categories of serious crime: corruption, economic crimes, defense procurement fraud, narcotics, cybercrime, insurrection and foreign exchange violations. Everyday crimes against socially vulnerable people fall outside that mandate. "It's unclear whether economic crimes like fraud should also be referred to the agency when the victim happens to be socially vulnerable — the standard is vague," an officer at a Seoul police station said. "Considerable confusion on the ground is to be expected."

Police also object to the structural arrangement under which the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency — itself a primary investigative body, like the police — would receive case referrals from police. "If police hand over cases they investigated to the agency, it could create a hierarchical relationship between investigative bodies," a police official said.

The amendments passed the subcommittee Tuesday with ruling-bloc lawmakers from the Democratic Party of Korea and allied parties forcing the vote through while People Power Party members walked out. The Democratic Party said it plans to conduct additional review in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee before putting the bill to a full plenary vote Thursday. The opposition said it would submit a request to convene an agenda-coordination committee — a mechanism that provides a deliberation period before contentious bills are put to a vote.