-Retaining supplementary investigation rights? Current revision bill is insufficient, listening to opinions
-Vast majority of the public urges caution... Party members' opinions are also diversifying
-Most lawmakers, except for Kim Yong-min and Seo Young-kyo, agree on the need for supplementary measures
-Supplementary investigations should be retained as exceptions for crimes targeting the vulnerable and livelihood crimes
-Instead, abuse prevention clauses such as "prohibition of separate investigations" should be added
-Prosecutor-victim meeting in case of issues? Jung Chung-rae also acknowledges supplementary investigations
-Should not be used as a political tool to appeal to hardline party members
-Are the worried citizens traitors? More deliberation is needed
-Women's groups worry about local police collusion in sex crime cases
-Criticism of being on the prosecutors' side? This is a citizens' issue... Hope it doesn't become politicized
-Public opinion is shifting... Park Ji-won also agrees on the need for supplementary investigations
■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 AM – 9:00 AM)
■ Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2026
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Representative Kim Nam-hee, Democratic Party of Korea
▷Kim Tae-hyun: The Democratic Party of Korea held a general meeting of lawmakers yesterday (July 14) to hear opinions within the party regarding the revision bill of the Criminal Procedure Act. Among them, we have someone who is lending weight to the cautious approach regarding the complete abolition of supplementary investigation rights. Let's talk with Representative Kim Nam-hee of the Democratic Party of Korea. Hello, Representative.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Hello. I am Representative Kim Nam-hee representing Gwangmyeong-eul.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Representative, has it been tough for you lately?
▶Kim Nam-hee: Me? No. There are many people who support me, and many who criticize me.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: But I listened to the radio on my way here. On the radio, they introduced me as "Representative Kim Nam-hee, who strongly advocates for retaining supplementary investigation rights." Actually, I would first like to say that I am listening to various rational arguments, and I am not someone who speaks with a predetermined conclusion.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Then, have you personally not decided yet whether it is better to completely abolish it or leave it as an exception? Because the media mostly classifies you, along with Representative Hong and a few others, as lawmakers who argue that it should be retained, opposing the party leadership's stance on complete abolition.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes. However, my concern is that under the current revision bill, it is too difficult to guarantee the rights of victims and discover the substantive truth, so we need measures to improve it. That is my position.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: There could actually be various ways to do that. So, whether to retain supplementary investigation rights, or as some argue, address the lack of control over the police, which is a major part of the current problem. Some believe that issues like investigative command or the transfer of all cases to the police are more serious. Therefore, I believe we need to have all these diverse discussions.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: In any case, you are saying that we cannot just abolish everything before the national convention, as the leadership is suggesting, right?
▶Kim Nam-hee: That makes no sense. Because in a poll I saw yesterday (July 14), only 22% of the public supported complete abolition. The remaining 78%, almost 80% of the public, expressed opinions that it should not be completely abolished or that it needs to be carefully reviewed.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: If 80% of the public is worried, making a hasty policy decision based on the opinions of only 20% is not a good attitude for a politician.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: That is why I asked if it has been tough for you. Since your stance goes against the party leadership's policy and the views of hardline party members, I was worried that you might be receiving a barrage of text messages.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Well, I do receive text messages, but I also receive a lot of supportive messages. This is because opinions on this issue have diversified even among Democratic Party members.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so?
▶Kim Nam-hee: They are not all heading in one direction. While some say the complete abolition of supplementary investigation rights is absolutely necessary, there are also quite a few who think we should be more cautious and review various aspects because several issues have come to light, and we shouldn't rush.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: How was the atmosphere at yesterday's (July 14) general meeting of lawmakers? According to media reports, out of about fifteen lawmakers who spoke, more than ten of them said we shouldn't completely abolish it and must create supplementary measures.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Most of the lawmakers expressed concern about complete abolition.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Except for a few lawmakers who have strongly and clearly advocated for complete abolition, such as Representative Kim Yong-min and Representative Seo Young-kyo, most of the lawmakers said they are very worried if we proceed as is. They said we must prepare some supplementary measures because the public is deeply concerned. So, they voiced opinions such as retaining supplementary investigations or, as mentioned earlier, requiring the transfer of all cases or investigative command.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: So, not long ago, Representative Kim Han-kyu and Representative Park Sang-hyuk submitted a proposal from the Criminal Procedure Act Revision TF. That one is for complete abolition, right?
▶Kim Nam-hee: That's correct. It is for complete abolition.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: That is for complete abolition. And yesterday (July 14), Representative Hong Ki-won proposed a revision bill.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes, that's right.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: You co-sponsored that bill as well, didn't you?
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes, I did.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: What does it entail? It is said to contain provisions that exceptionally retain supplementary investigation rights. What are the details?
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes, it does. Specifically, for crimes targeting socially vulnerable groups—such as sexual violence or crimes against children, the disabled, and the elderly—it is difficult for these vulnerable individuals to strongly assert their rights. For such crimes, as well as livelihood-damaging crimes like "jeonse" rental fraud and voice phishing, where the victims are diverse and find it hard to actively assert their rights, we propose to allow supplementary investigation rights only in these exceptional cases. However, there are criticisms that supplementary investigation rights could lead to the indefinite expansion and abuse of the prosecution's investigative powers. To prevent this, the bill prohibits separate investigations entirely, allowing investigations only into the same facts. If another crime is discovered, it must be handed back to the police. So, it bans separate investigations.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Also, in the case of coercive investigations, such as arrest warrants or other coercive measures, there are abuse prevention clauses requiring approval from the head of the Indictment Agency.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: It seems to be receiving positive reviews in the media. Especially with the recent Jang Yoon-ki case, people are saying, "Shouldn't we retain supplementary investigation rights for the prosecution even if it's like this?" The media is evaluating it positively.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: The problem is, how many lawmakers within the Democratic Party support the bill proposed by Representative Hong? Because there must be many lawmakers who remain quiet and just watch during the general meeting.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Most of those who spoke yesterday (July 14) strongly sympathized with Representative Hong Ki-won's concerns. Since nearly 80% of the public is worried, the dominant atmosphere yesterday seemed to be that we must listen to the voices of the people.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so?
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes. However, despite this, there are still some lawmakers who try to use supplementary investigation rights as a kind of political tool.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Are you referring to former Representative Jung Chung-rae? Because ahead of the national convention, he is talking about "shut up and completely abolish it, leaving not even a drop of soup."
▶Kim Nam-hee: What makes no sense is that former Representative Jung Chung-rae said we should "shut up and abolish it, leaving not even a drop of soup." When asked what to do if side effects occur, he said we can just use the "right to verify facts," where prosecutors verify facts and interview victims. But verifying facts and interviewing victims is exactly what an investigation is. The very concept of an investigation is the process of conducting an inquiry to discover the truth of a crime.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: So, while saying we must absolutely not leave even a drop of supplementary investigation, when asked what to do if side effects occur, he basically said we can just do supplementary investigations. It's contradictory.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Furthermore, if nearly 80% of the public is worried about this issue, are those 80% of citizens traitors? That makes no sense. We should encourage and communicate with lawmakers who empathize with and listen to the voices of 80% of the public.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Instead, he talks as if abolishing supplementary investigation rights is an absolute truth and a sacred, inviolable domain, using it as a tool to appeal to hardline party members. I think that is highly inappropriate behavior for a politician.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Representative, even if 80% of the public thinks it should be retained, in the end, what matters most is what the Democratic Party, which controls the legislature, does, right?
▶Kim Nam-hee: That's right.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Honestly, what percentage of Democratic Party lawmakers do you think agree with this compromise proposal that you and Representative Hong Ki-won are advocating?
▶Kim Nam-hee: To be honest, before yesterday's (July 14) general meeting, I also wondered if there were not many people who were worried. But since many lawmakers expressed concerns and there was an atmosphere of empathy, I believe members of the National Assembly cannot ignore the will of 80% of the public. That is what I think.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Then, do you think about 80% of the lawmakers within the Democratic Party would agree with your compromise proposal?
▶Kim Nam-hee: Well, it's not a matter of whether they agree with the compromise proposal or not. In any case, there are concerns about pushing this through so unreasonably, and many lawmakers seem to agree that we must go through a process of either persuading the public or embracing their concerns through communication.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Then, Representative, according to what you are saying, the likelihood of the original complete abolition being pushed through as is is very low?
▶Kim Nam-hee: Well, politics is always a living thing, so we will have to wait and see.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: "Politics is a living thing"—so that's what it comes down to. By the way, you are not a member of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, are you?
▶Kim Nam-hee: I am on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Oh, you are on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee? But can it pass the committee? There are many strong-willed lawmakers on the committee, like Chairperson Seo Young-kyo and Representative Kim Yong-min.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Discussions are ongoing in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. Ultimately, since it is an important bill, the leadership's judgment seems to be crucial.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: I heard that starting today (July 15), the Legislation and Judiciary Committee will hear opinions from the Ministry of Justice and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). Will the prosecution—the Supreme Prosecutors' Office—also attend separately from the Ministry of Justice?
▶Kim Nam-hee: No, currently it is the Ministry of Justice attending.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: But the public's concern right now is that the President clearly stated, "My conviction is to retain it as an exception. But let the party deliberate on this." He explicitly said this twice recently.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes, he told us to deliberate.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: But the party doesn't seem to be deliberating much. Because right after the President's remarks, former Representative Jung Chung-rae's wording was "complete abolition," and before the national convention at that.
▶Kim Nam-hee: But I think it's difficult to judge the entire party based on the words of one person. In any case, we had a very long general meeting of lawmakers yesterday (July 14) as well, and there were also suggestions to schedule an additional meeting. Since even the party leadership is talking about the need for communication and discussion with the public, I think we can say we are currently undergoing a process of deliberation.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: So you also believe this is an issue that requires time, not something to be rushed through before the national convention, right?
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes, because there are various opinions among the public for this to be rushed through. I believe the proper attitude of a politician is to listen sufficiently and communicate.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: I see. Some Democratic Party lawmakers say we must do it before the national convention because the Indictment Agency and the Serious Crime Investigation Agency will launch on October 1, so we have to align with that timeline.
▶Kim Nam-hee: But as you well know, the public is deeply worried due to incidents like the recent Jang Yoon-ki case. While speed is important in policy decision-making, when the public raises issues like this, there must be a sufficient process of communication and persuasion.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yesterday, or rather recently, you held a press conference with women's groups regarding this issue.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: What is the biggest concern for the women in those women's groups?
▶Kim Nam-hee: I met with support groups for female victims and lawyers. Their biggest concern is that the police are too closely tied to local communities. In the case of prosecutors, they keep moving around. However, in many cases, the police officers who initially handle criminal investigations are those who have worked in that specific region for a long time, just like how Jang Yoon-ki's father had continuously worked in that area. Since they all know each other, there are instances where they collude to cover up cases or dismiss guilty cases. In sexual assault cases, evidence must be secured early on, and statements often conflict. So, they worry that if there is corruption or collusion, it will be difficult to conduct a proper investigation.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Actually, many problems have arisen since the 2021 adjustment of investigative powers between the prosecution and police. Back then, the prosecution's investigative command and the transfer of all cases were abolished. As a result, problems like burying cases or delaying case processing occurred on the ground. If we eliminate supplementary investigations as part of another "reform" without resolving those issues, then those who suffer injustices—though I don't think the number of people suffering injustices is absolutely massive...
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: ...but they worry that even the few who do suffer injustices will no longer have any way to resolve their problems.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Aside from the issue of exceptionally retaining supplementary investigation rights, are you also considering ways to control the police, whose power is growing excessively? Because they are essentially taking over all the investigative powers that the prosecution used to have.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes, I think that is precisely the core content of this reform. There could be various methods. As mentioned earlier, with the abolition of the transfer of all cases, the police gained the power to bury cases. So, there is a need for measures to control that.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Or, some lawmakers are considering whether we should retain some supplementary investigation rights to double-check. So we need to discuss this together.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.
▶Kim Nam-hee: But another thing I worry about is that making this a political battle is not good.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: When you say political battle...
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes. I am really concerned about this becoming a political tool.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: It is not desirable for this to become an issue at the national convention.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Exactly. Because this is an issue for victims and ordinary citizens. It's absurd when people ask me if I am on the prosecutors' side. Frankly speaking, prosecutors have no complaints about this reform. Because their responsibility disappears,
▷Kim Tae-hyun: And they can live comfortably.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes. Their workload will decrease significantly.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: I've heard that too.
▶Kim Nam-hee: So, from the prosecutors' perspective, they don't have much to complain about, and neither do the police. While front-line police officers might find it tough due to heavier responsibilities, high-ranking police officers can use their careers to get hired by major law firms for huge sums of money, even now. Since their interests align, most of those in power have no complaints about this reform. Instead, those who suffer are victim support groups—the socially vulnerable, such as women, the disabled, and children, who cannot properly secure their rights when they are victimized on the ground. I am communicating and presenting opinions on these matters, so why would prosecutors ask me for favors? Prosecutors do not dislike this reform.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Rather, it is not desirable for this to become an issue at the Democratic Party national convention, debating whether abolishing supplementary investigation rights is right, what hardline supporters are doing, or the need for prosecution reform.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Yes, that is not desirable. We must think about this from the perspective of citizens. We must thoroughly think from the public's perspective about what measures can properly guarantee rights when someone becomes a victim of a crime, especially from the standpoint of the socially vulnerable, or when someone is falsely accused.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: I see. You mentioned that 80% of the public is concerned about supplementary investigation rights. While we couldn't find that specific poll, here is a similar recent poll. In a survey conducted by Hangil Research commissioned by Poly News on July 6–7 using wireless ARS, 57% of respondents said the prosecution's supplementary investigation rights are necessary, while 31.1% said they are unnecessary. For details, you can refer to the National Election Survey Deliberation Commission website. If this discussion drags on and no conclusion is reached, is it possible to slightly delay the launch of the Indictment Agency and the Serious Crime Investigation Agency scheduled for October?
▶Kim Nam-hee: We are not discussing that possibility openly yet, but I think it is an issue we should judge after watching the progress of various discussions and looking at public opinion.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: But victims and the media also worry: "Is this just false hope?" They worry that lawmakers like Kim Nam-hee, Hong Ki-won, and Lee So-young might courageously speak out against the party leadership's policy, only for the discussion to fizzle out and end up in complete abolition anyway.
▶Kim Nam-hee: But yesterday (July 14), our senior colleague Park Ji-won also appeared on the Maebul Show and said that the public's sentiment is very important. He mentioned that for sexual assault victims or the socially vulnerable, at least some supplementary investigation rights might be necessary.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: His tone has softened. Because when he interviewed with me right here on Monday (July 13), he said, "Should we avoid making soy sauce just because we're afraid of maggots? We must abolish it."
▶Kim Nam-hee: Exactly. He slightly changed his stance within three days.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: Indeed.
▶Kim Nam-hee: So, in my view, politicians cannot help but be sensitive to public opinion. Since politicians have no choice but to respond when the public raises issues about what they think, I believe we must continue to have open discussions about these matters.
▷Kim Tae-hyun: I see. We will wrap up here today. That was Representative Kim Nam-hee of the Democratic Party of Korea. Thank you.
▶Kim Nam-hee: Thank you.
The copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing the full text or quoting the interview,
please specify the channel name and the exact program name as follows.
[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.