[Anchor]
As public concern grows over the potential abolition of the prosecution's supplementary investigation rights in the wake of the "Jang Yoon-gi case," the Democratic Party held a public hearing today (July 21) with experts. A fierce debate for and against the issue took place among the experts.
Reporter Ha Jeongyeon reports.
[Reporter]
The Democratic Party held a policy general meeting to gather internal consensus on the issue of abolishing the prosecution's supplementary investigation rights.
The meeting was conducted in a format of listening to and discussing opinions from experts in the legal, academic, and civic sectors. The Democratic Party leadership began by promising to fully listen to diverse voices.
[Han Byung-do / Floor Leader of the Democratic Party: This is a venue for discussion to solidify the direction of the reforms we have been pursuing, while at the same time completely dispelling even 1% of anxiety.]
A heated debate lasting over two hours took place among the experts regarding whether to maintain or abolish the supplementary investigation rights.
[Park Chan-woon / Professor at Hanyang University Law School (Position: Maintain supplementary investigation rights): Abolishing supplementary investigation rights would be a reform that puts the handling of 99% of general criminal cases at risk.]
[Hwang Mun-gyu / Professor of Police Administration at Joongbu University (Position: Abolish supplementary investigation rights): There is a high possibility that separate or targeted investigations will be revived by exploiting the anxious psychology of victims.]
Even regarding the "Jang Yoon-gi case," views were sharply divided: some argued it is a matter to be solved through "police reform," while others claimed it demonstrated the necessity of the prosecution's supplementary investigation rights.
[Kang Dong-pil / Lawyer (Position: Abolish supplementary investigation rights): The fact that the emergency arrest in the Jang Yoon-gi case was made in 11 hours is something only the South Korean police could do. They did well.]
[Kim Gyu-hyun / Lawyer (Position: Maintain supplementary investigation rights): In reality, public livelihood damages like the Jang Yoon-gi case are being mass-produced. Why are we doing such reforms? You said investigations speak through records, but are there cable ties in the records?]
A war of words also broke out between an expert and a Democratic Party lawmaker.
[Kim Nam-hee / Democratic Party Lawmaker (Position: Maintain supplementary investigation rights with limitations): Each case is a matter involving a person's life, such as the bereaved family of Ms. Lee Chae-won, the victim of the Jang Yoon-gi case.]
[Kang Dong-pil / Lawyer (Position: Abolish supplementary investigation rights): If you leave the supplementary investigation rights, will prosecutors go out to the scene every single time to look for cable ties? They can't. They can't do it.]
Although the general meeting was held as a process for legislative public discussion through gathering expert opinions, only about 15 out of the 161 Democratic Party lawmakers remained until the end.
(Video Editing: Yu Mi-ra)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.