This article is by Kim Seong-jin and read by an artificial voice.



With the National Assembly's passage of a bill to abolish the Prosecution Service on Friday, renewed debate is expected over whether to revive full case transfers and preserve prosecutors' supplementary investigation powers.

Although prosecutors had largely remained silent, they now say they will actively voice their opinions during the one-year grace period before the reorganization takes effect, arguing that "full case transfers and the right to conduct supplementary investigations represent the final safeguards in maintaining control over investigative power."

Fears of cases going unresolved

Both the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office plan to submit their organizational opinions on preserving full case transfers and supplementary investigation powers during the grace period, according to legal sources on Sunday. Around 10 prosecutors are expected to be seconded to the new pan-governmental task force for prosecution reform under the Prime Minister's Office.

The bill passed Friday aims to separate the functions of investigation and prosecution. It abolishes the Prosecution Service, transfers all investigative authority to a new Serious Crimes Investigation Agency under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety and establishes a new office for indictments under the Ministry of Justice.

It marks the most significant overhaul of Korea's criminal justice system in 78 years, with the stated goal of addressing longstanding concerns over prosecutorial overreach.

However, legal experts warn that placing all first-instance investigative bodies - the police, the National Office of Investigation (NOI) and the new investigation agency - under the Interior Ministry creates an environment where the police effectively monopolize investigative authority. In such a system, checks and balances are crucial.



One such safeguard under discussion is the full case transfer system, in which all cases - regardless of whether the suspect is indicted or not - are forwarded to the prosecution for review.

Prior to the 2021 prosecution-police reform under the Moon Jae-in administration, all cases were transferred to the prosecution. But since that reform granted police the authority to close cases they deemed baseless, only cases where victims formally object are now sent to the prosecution. Third-party whistle-blowers thus have no legal grounds to appeal.

"A lot of unanswered questions remain when reviewing police decisions to not refer a case," said a former senior prosecutor who now works as a lawyer. "In a system where the police monopolize investigative power, reviving the full case transfer system is the least we can do to prevent cases from being buried unjustly."

Justice Minister Jung Sung-ho also expressed a willingness to review the proposal during a National Assembly interpellation session on Sept. 15, in response to a question from People Power Party (PPP) lawmaker Yoo Yeong-ha.



Winnable cases may be lost

Prosecutors are also strongly pushing for the preservation of their authority to conduct supplementary investigations. Acting Prosecutor General Noh Man-seok said on Sept. 3, "Revealing the truth through supplementary investigations is not merely a right but a duty of prosecutors."

Prosecutors argue that if they are forced to decide whether to indict solely based on police records, errors will inevitably increase - including weak indictments or cases wrongly dismissed.

If a case does go to trial, the prosecution may find it difficult to counter arguments from defense lawyers or pursue appropriate sentencing, undermining their ability to sustain the charge in court.

A total of 88.1 percent of 2,383 lawyers responded that prosecutors should retain either supplementary investigation powers or at least the right to request them, according to a recent survey conducted by the Korean Bar Association from Sept. 12 to 19.



Among them, 44.6 percent said prosecutor...