View this in your browser 

For headlines and cultural insight, check out our Tuesday issue! 

We hear a lot about "공수처" in politics these days. 

The ruling Democratic Party is stepping up their push for the launch of the 공수처, the new Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO), as the National Assembly has passed related bills in December 2019 and August 2020. 

The 공수처 is an independent agency that investigates corruption allegations against high-ranking government officials and their family members. If a high-ranking official such as a president or their family members commits a crime, the 공수처 can take charge of the investigation and indictment. They will do this independently from other organizations. 

Until now, the prosecutors' office (검찰사) has had the sole right to investigate and indict. This has led to many problems with prosecutors colluding with political figures and conducting biased investigations or otherwise abusing their power. 

Also, illegal lobbying (Korean) has been rampant, such as providing sexual favors or handing over money to prosecutors in exchange for "help" with an investigation. 

Thus, those who support the launch of the 공수처 claim that the government should, at least partially, hand over the right to investigate and indict to an independent agency, in order to limit the power of the prosecution. 

Although bills related to the launch of the 공수처 have already been passed, the controversy is still ongoing. Those who are against it even submitted a national petition. Let us look into their arguments.

Opponents of the 공수처 fear that it will lead to a power monopoly. As the head of the agency is appointed by the president, it has been suggested that investigations will not be carried out properly when it comes to investigating close associates of the president of the ruling party. Also, some point out that the 공수처 will eventually have the same power monopoly that the prosecutors' office has now when it gets hold of both the right to prosecute and the right to indict high-ranking officials. 

There is already a way to investigate high-ranking officials and reform the prosecution – via a "special counsel". Special counsels were, for example, appointed during the Choi Soon-sil (2016) and the "Druking" (2018) scandals. 

Opponents of the 공수처 also insist on keeping the prosecutorial monopoly principle (기소독점주의) that gives only prosecutors the right to prosecute criminal acts and request warrants. However, since none of the 공수처 investigators is a current prosecutor, there has been a debate about whether it is appropriate to give them the right to request warrants. 

So far, there has been a steady effort within the prosecutors' office to investigate high-ranking government officials. 1) Special counsels and 2) special inspectors are two examples. However, they do have limitations.  

- There have been cases where an investigation was conducted very slowly due to political disputes concerning whether to appoint a special counsel or not. 

- Special counsels must be appointed with the approval of a majority of the National Assembly - which means they are hardly independent of political power. 

- A special inspector does not have the authority to investigate by force, which means that only a limited investigation is possible. 

- A special inspector is directly related to the president and therefore also hardly independent of political power.  

During the 2007 South Korean presidential election, there were allegations made about presidential candidate Lee Myung-bak's relationship with a company called BBK. However, Lee was soon declared to be innocent of the accusations, and some critics argued that it was because Lee was likely to be elected as president. Some see this as a clear-cut example of why reform is necessary. 

South Korea is a member of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. According to the core provisions of the convention's agreement, countries need to establish their own anti-corruption agencies. A total of 56 countries have set up a 공수처.

Then what about Korea? Some argue that Korea has turned into a "Republic of Prosecutors" since it has never had a 공수처 and lacks anti-corruption measures.

- 1996 The 공수처 was first referred to in the Anti-Corruption Act 

- 2017 The 공수처 became one of the Moon Jae-in administration's campaign promises 

- 2017.10 The establishment of the 공수처 was announced 

- 2019.04 The "Act on the Establishment of the 공수처" was ready to be fast-tracked 

- 2019.12 The Act passed the plenary session of the National Assembly 

- 2020.01 The Act was proclaimed by the State Council 

- 2020.02 The preparation team for the 공수처 was launched 

- 2020.11.13 The final candidates for the top 공수처 posts were discussed at the recommendation committee meeting. 

- 2020.11.18 The discussion was held but the committee failed to select the final candidate. 

If the committee does not hold additional meetings with the consent of more than one-third of its members, the Democratic Party of Korea is likely to revise the law and nominate candidates independently. 

This stems from the enormous authority of the Korean prosecutor. 

Generally, the prosecutors are responsible for the prosecution and the police are responsible for the investigation. For example, British and U.S. prosecutors have a right to prosecutions only, German and French prosecutors have a right to prosecute and limited investigation. 

However, the Korean prosecutors have full authority to prosecute and investigate. Because of the excessive authority, there have been possibilities of abusing the power. 

Prosecutors have used their power to make a connection with big shots in the political and business area. They try to run for election and enter into the government using their personal connections. A vicious circle has emerged in which prosecutors who have entered the congress use their authority again to retain the power of the prosecutor's office.

The former chief staff of Blue House Kim Ki-Choon is a representative example of a Korean prosecutor who is closely related to politics. Besides him, many other prosecutors have entered politics. It is shown in statistics. Fifteen of the 300 lawmakers (Korean) in the 20th and 21st(It is the latest election held in 2020 April) general elections were former prosecutors.

These lawmakers help maintain the power of the prosecution. The 17th National Assembly, therefore, proposed a reform of the prosecution, including the establishment of a 공수처. But the plan was overshadowed by opposition from such former prosecutors. The 18th National Assembly also agreed to establish a 공수처 but canceled their plans for the same reason (now it's the 19th assembly).

Korean prosecutors' enormous power originated in the Japanese colonial era. In the late 1800s, Korea went through a time of modernization. The Gabo Reform (1894) was an expression of the people’s dream of a new era, to break away from the old regime.

However, it was heavily influenced by the Japanese colonial government and conveyed rights to "investigate and prosecute" to prosecutors, based on the Japanese prosecution system. The status and role of the prosecutors thus grew stronger through the Japanese colonial period (1910-1945). The Japanese government strengthened its jurisdiction in Korea, a colony at the time, with the aim of further cementing the control of the Japanese Empire. The prosecution was allowed unlimited forced investigations and their practice of prosecuting minor criminals were also established at that time.

After Korea's liberation from Japan, public opinion was that the "colonial justice system" should be reformed. People demanded a reduction of the power of the prosecution but failed - the prosecution defended its existing status and authority and strengthened its organization.

There have been many cases where Korean prosecutors arbitrarily used their power, especially their right to investigate and indict to manipulate cases to seek their benefits.

A case in point is the spy fabrication case manipulated by the aforementioned Kim Ki-choon. In 1975, when the Cold War was in full swing, the Park Chung-hee administration needed to suppress their critics in order to stabilize the regime. Kim Ki-choon convicted a large number of innocent college students by fabricating evidence and identifying them as spies. The victims were beaten and tortured until they confessed.

The prosecution's leniency toward prosecutors is also revealed by statistics. The prosecution does not prosecute 98% (Korean) of cases involving prosecutors, while the prosecution does not prosecute 59% of cases that were not related to prosecutors. 

One of the worst non-prosecution cases that clearly shows this bias is the sexual assault case involving Kim Hak-ui.

Kim Hak-ui was named vice justice minister in 2013. However, suspicions arose that he received sexual favors at a villa in collusion with business leaders. Police had already secured photos and video material that confirmed the allegations. Nevertheless, the prosecution did not prosecute Kim Hak-ui, claiming uncertainty of evidence. The case was later reinvestigated and it was revealed that the prosecution had not indicted him even though it had secured high-definition photos and videos.

The 공수처 is one way to reform the prosecution, but there has been another attempt: the adjustment of investigative powers between the prosecutor and police.

The police conduct an independent investigation to collect and preserve evidence for the evaluation of an indictment. The prosecutors' office commands this investigation through warrant requests.

The prosecutors' office and the police are part of a vertical structure where only the prosecution has the authority to conduct investigations. The adjustment which will take place from January 2021 is intended to break the mold and move toward a more cooperative relationship, with the purpose to decentralize and check the investigative authority of the prosecutors' office.

In the meantime, the prosecution has been controlling the police by directing the investigation. However, the right of the prosecutors' office to direct investigations is being abolished through the current reform, and their authority is being weakened. 

The prosecutors' office can make judgments on cases where investigations have begun, such as indictment or non-indictment. Either this leads to court, or the case is closed. This has been the exclusive authority of the prosecution until now, but public opinion is that the police who investigated a case also needs to be given the right to decide how the case should be closed. After the reform, the police will have the right to close a case.

The adjustment will take effect on January 1, 2021. However, there are still conflicts over the adjustment of the prosecutor and police investigation rights. 

Some have claimed that the reform will not lead to changes in real life. The reform includes limiting the scope of the prosecutor's investigations to six crimes (corruption, economic crimes, civil servant crimes, election crimes, defense procurement crimes, and large-scale disasters) set by Presidential Decree. However, those 6 crimes are considered the main crimes in Korea. Even after the planned reformation of the Korean prosecution, their power will still be enormous.

This is a drama that received praise for realistically portraying the adjustment of investigative rights between the prosecutor and police. 

If you want to know more about the real atmosphere between the police and the prosecutor in Korean society, we recommend that you check it out. 

Let's call it a day!

This week, we covered one issue. Instead, we tried to give you up-to-date news and insight into the legal system of Korea at the same time. 

How was it? Let us know! 

The conversation's always better with more friends💑