With the revised Code of Criminal Procedure set to take effect Oct. 2 and the new Public Prosecution Service set to launch on the same date, debate is intensifying over what will become of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's forensic science division and criminal intelligence planning office once prosecutors lose their direct investigation powers.
According to legal sources Sunday, the Ministry of Justice has been reviewing regulations governing the prosecutors' office — including rules on its administrative structure — and reorganizing the Public Prosecution Service's functions and operations following the promulgation of the revised Code of Criminal Procedure on Wednesday.
Key questions have emerged over whether the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's forensic science division and criminal intelligence planning office should remain within the Public Prosecution Service, be transferred to other agencies, or be scaled back or abolished entirely.
The forensic science division comprises four units: forensic analysis, DNA and chemical analysis, digital investigation, and cyber-technology crime investigation. It examines and analyzes scientific evidence — including handwriting, psychological assessments, statements, DNA and forensic data — to support prosecutors in investigations and the maintenance of prosecutions.
Some within the ruling camp argue that, since prosecutors will no longer have direct investigative authority, the forensic science division should be transferred to either the new Serious Crime Investigation Agency or the National Forensic Service.
The argument is that maintaining a separate forensic organization within the prosecutors' office that duplicates the National Forensic Service's functions is inefficient in terms of staffing and budget — and that keeping an in-house forensic unit within the Public Prosecution Service could allow it to serve as a backdoor tool for direct investigation.
Hwang Un-ha, a lawmaker of the Rebuilding Korea Party and one of the most vocal advocates of prosecutors' office reform, posted on SNS Friday, when the organizational structure of the Serious Crime Investigation Agency was put out for legislative notice, that "it is only right to transfer the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's forensic science division, digital forensics center and related units to the Serious Crime Investigation Agency." He added that "it would be natural and sensible for forensic departments that have become redundant at the Public Prosecution Service to move over as they are."
The Ministry of Interior and Safety's proposed organizational structure for the Serious Crime Investigation Agency includes a forensic science bureau comprising three divisions: cyber-technology investigation, digital investigation, and AI and virtual assets analysis.
The progressive civic group People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy also sent a public letter of inquiry last month to the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office's Public Prosecution Service Launch Preparatory Team, calling for the "complete abolition of the current investigative departments within the prosecutors' office" and asking whether there were plans to consolidate and transfer infrastructure — including the forensic science division and the National Digital Forensics Center — to external specialist agencies such as the National Forensic Service.
Concerns have also been raised about D-NET and NDFaaS, the digital evidence management servers operated by the forensic science division. Critics warn the systems could be misused as a so-called "digital cabinet" — storing electronic data beyond the scope of search and seizure warrants and making it available for use in other investigations.
Prosecutors, however, maintain that the forensic science division must be preserved. They argue it plays an essential role in deciding whether to indict and in sustaining prosecutions by independently re-verifying findings that the National Forensic Service has already examined.
Prosecutors have particularly emphasized that the forensic science division has played a critical role in a number of high-profile cases.
One prominent example is the 2022 Busan kicking assault case, in which evidence of sexual assault nearly went undetected. The National Forensic Service had examined five areas of the victim's clothing, including her jeans, finding the perpetrator's DNA only on the outer surface. Unable to establish evidence of attempted rape, prosecutors initially charged the perpetrator only with attempted murder.
The forensic science division subsequently conducted a detailed examination of 121 areas across the victim's jeans, underwear, top and cardigan, and detected the perpetrator's DNA on the inner thigh of the jeans.
Prosecutors then changed the charge to attempted rape-murder, and the Supreme Court upheld a 20-year prison sentence for the perpetrator.
In the May murder case involving a female high school student in South Jeolla Province and Gwangju, the forensic science division uncovered CCTV footage showing suspect Jang Yun-gi, 24, opening the rear door of his vehicle before the crime. On that basis, the prosecution team concluded the killing was committed with intent to kidnap and rape.
Within and around the prosecutors' office, some have also floated the idea of making the forensic science division fully independent from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office — establishing it as a standalone agency, similar to the National Forensic Service under the Ministry of Interior and Safety, to preserve its specialized expertise while addressing concerns about potential misuse.
The criminal intelligence planning office — long known as "the eyes and ears of the prosecutor general" and repeatedly buffeted by changes in government — is also expected to face restructuring.
Established under the Kim Dae-jung administration in 1999, the office wielded considerable influence by reporting directly to the prosecutor general on criminal intelligence and developments inside and outside the prosecutors' office. It repeatedly drew criticism over allegations that it had overstepped its mandate by conducting surveillance of private citizens and being mobilized for so-called "Blue House-directed investigations."
The Moon Jae-in administration renamed it the "investigation information officer" and restricted its mandate to collecting only criminal intelligence, significantly reducing its size. When allegations emerged in 2021 that then-Prosecutor General Yoon Suk Yeol — later president — had been involved in a scheme to solicit complaints against political opponents, the office was renamed again to "information management officer" and its authority was further curtailed. After Yoon took office as president, the Ministry of Justice revived the office under its original mandate, citing the need to bolster prosecutors' direct investigative capacity, and expanded the scope of information it could handle from "investigative information" to "information related to crime."
The post of criminal intelligence planning chief has been vacant since last February — six months. Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office also transferred some investigators from its investigation information division to other departments last month, ahead of the revision to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Prosecutors acknowledge that some personnel adjustments are unavoidable given the loss of direct investigative powers, but insist the criminal intelligence function itself should not be abolished. They argue that the capacity to collect and analyze criminal intelligence remains essential for verifying whether evidence has been fabricated or facts distorted during police investigations, and for determining whether to request supplementary investigation or decide on indictment.
kacew@heraldcorp.com
