Amended criminal procedure law sowing confusion in courtrooms, prosecutor says

A sitting prosecutor has raised concerns that the amended Code of Criminal Procedure — which restricts prosecutors' authority to conduct supplementary investigations directly — is causing confusion in courtrooms. The prosecutor said trials are being delayed because prosecutors can no longer submit documents directly to the court, even when the presiding judge has specifically requested them.

An Mi-hyeon, a deputy chief prosecutor at the Cheonan branch of the Daejeon Public Prosecution Service, recently shared her experience on Facebook, describing cases she has encountered since the amended law took effect.

According to An, a judge in a recent trial noted that part of a tax invoice summary table was missing and asked that the document be submitted at the next hearing.

When An obtained the tax invoice summary from the National Tax Service and attempted to submit it directly to the court, the judge told her she could not do so and instructed her to file a request for a fact inquiry or a document production order instead.

An criticized the situation, saying lawmakers had changed the rules so that prosecutors are barred from obtaining and submitting documents directly — even when necessary to maintain a prosecution — on the grounds that evidence gathered that way would be inadmissible.

Before the amended law took effect, concerns had already been raised that restricting prosecutors' direct supplementary investigation authority would slow case processing and complicate procedures for submitting evidence needed to sustain prosecutions.

An said the new process requires prosecutors to file a separate application with the court, which must then formally request the documents from the National Tax Service.

"The prosecutor has to file a fact-inquiry or document-production-order application with the court — at the next hearing or outside of it — and the court tells the National Tax Service to hand over the tax invoice summary, and the NTS employee thinks, 'Why are they asking for this again?' and sends the documents to the court," she said.

She added that with the next hearing a month away, a further month's delay had become unremarkable — a pointed remark about the growing problem of trial delays.