전환기의 형사사법, 혁신인가 혼란인가: 검찰 폐지 이후의 과제 > K-wave Trends

As soon as the local elections concluded, the police and prosecution declared a war on election crimes. The police are already operating specialized investigation teams having identified thousands of election offenders, but the problem is that the short statute of limitations scheduled for December 3 and the organizational reorganization in October are on a collision course. Within the legal community, there are warnings that if the Prosecution Service disappears at a time when cases are flooding into it ahead of the expiration of the statute of limitations, the continuity of investigative command will be broken, leading to delays in case processing and, consequently, allowing criminals to slip through the legal net. Especially in a situation where complex cases, such as new types of smear campaigns using deepfakes, are increasing, the replacement of the investigative system carries the risk of significantly undermining the proficiency of investigators and organizational stability.

At the center of this chaos lies a heated debate over the survival of the prosecutor's right to request supplementary investigations. While the government has declared the principle of limiting the prosecution's direct investigative power and separating investigation from indictment, those on the front lines worry that if even the right to supplementary investigation disappears, the "ping-pong" phenomenon of investigations between the police and the prosecution will intensify. Given the reality that nearly half of all prosecution cases rely on supplementary investigations to uncover the substantive truth, criticism is fierce that abolishing this entirely is an act of eroding our own crime-response capabilities. While politicians have emphasized parliamentary consensus and passed the legislative burden to the National Assembly, the views of civic groups and the legal community remain sharply divided, suggesting significant labor pains ahead in the process of amending the Criminal Procedure Act.

Defining the nature of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (SCIA) is also a difficult challenge that must be resolved. Academic discussions on whether to view the SCIA as an exception to existing special judicial police or as a new investigative model are leading to practical concerns. Some point out that even though the SCIA has the outward appearance of a general judicial police organization, it is designed as an independent agency not subject to the command of prosecutors, thereby revealing contradictions in the existing control structure for special judicial police. This goes beyond the mere issue of the existence of command authority; it raises a fundamental question about how to redesign the authority and control requirements of each investigative agency in the new criminal justice system. Ultimately, the SCIA will serve as a case study testing the limits of the existing system, and without sophisticated institutional safeguards, it will not be free from controversy over arbitrary investigations.

The realistic physical limitations resulting from the creation of a new organization cannot be overlooked. The preparation process is so urgent and poor that even closed-down large supermarket buildings are being considered to secure office space for the SCIA. A forced launch without sufficient budget and infrastructure could cause initial operational gaps, which in turn could create a vicious cycle leading to low morale within the organization and the departure of talented personnel. The atmosphere of hesitation among prosecutors who are expected to move from the Prosecution Service to the SCIA due to concerns over job security and treatment is also a factor hindering organizational stabilization. If a core agency responsible for the safety of the people is launched without even a proper working environment, the damage will be borne entirely by the public.

Meanwhile, as President Lee Jae-myung marks his first anniversary in office, social discussion regarding the direction and achievements of state administration is active. In particular, the payment of special performance bonuses to public officials who contributed to the enactment of the Life and Safety Basic Act and the SCIA Act demonstrates the government's will to spread a performance-oriented organizational culture. However, behind these achievements, political suspicions such as rumors of "indictment cancellation deals" are emerging, attacking the legitimacy of the legislative push. Amidst pending livelihood issues such as the controversy over performance bonus distribution at large corporations like Samsung Electronics and the reform of real estate tax laws, attention is focused on whether the government can prioritize the essence of judicial reform—the "protection of the people's fundamental rights"—and lead a social consensus.