- Criminal Procedure Act stripping prosecution's investigative authority... existing joint prosecution-police investigative teams impossible
- Cooperative bodies possible? Defendant could allege illegal investigation
- Prosecution can reject warrants, but independent investigation strictly forbidden
- Proposals to grant investigative authority to prosecutors joining joint teams rejected
- Mandatory referral of all cases for 7 major crime categories... to prevent police from unilaterally closing cases
- However, only supplementary investigation requests allowed, making it no real alternative
- Fraud, bribery, and Public Official Election Act violations left even more vulnerable
- Sex crimes sent as severe injury only are excluded from mandatory referral
- Court-appointed attorneys for victims? Can a system existing since 2019 be an alternative?
- Total fee per case 250,000 won... only 45 full-time court-appointed attorneys nationwide
- Two months until launch of Serious Crime Investigation Agency... can it handle the flood of transferred cases?
- 'Privatization of prosecution' likely to raise legal costs and prolong proceedings
■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00)
■ Date: August 7, 2026 (Fri)
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Lim Chan-jong, SBS Legal Affairs Reporter
[Kim Tae-hyun] A reporter's notebook covering Seocho-dong from a legal affairs expert reporter. "The Man Living with Law," or "Beobsanam" for short. We are joined by SBS Legal Affairs Reporter Lim Chan-jong. Hello.
[Lim Chan-jong] Hello.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Did you have a good vacation by any chance?
[Lim Chan-jong] Yes, I had a good rest.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Is it hot?
[Lim Chan-jong] It's hot, isn't it? It seems very hot today as well.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Right, so was your vacation spot hot too?
[Lim Chan-jong] I actually didn't go on vacation.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Then it must have been hot. What topic have you prepared for today? Is it the Criminal Procedure Act again?
[Lim Chan-jong] I don't know how many months I've been talking about this topic. Maybe not months, but definitely for over a month. I looked into the aftermath of the Criminal Procedure Act amendment that abolished supplementary investigations, what will happen going forward, and what issues are currently at stake.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Today, let me start with this. A while ago during a briefing from the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior and Safety, the President raised this topic, which became an issue. Joint prosecution-police investigative teams, right?
[Lim Chan-jong] Yes.
[Kim Tae-hyun] We've always had those, where the prosecution and police set up a joint team to investigate together. But now the prosecution has lost its investigative authority. Prosecutors cannot directly investigate, nor can they conduct supplementary investigations. Can joint prosecution-police investigative teams still exist? That was the President's question. To that, Minister of the Interior and Safety Yun Ho-jung said a joint team could be formed collaborating among the Public Prosecution Office, Serious Crime Investigation Agency, and police. Minister of Justice Jung Sung-ho said if prosecutors from the Public Prosecution Office participate in investigations, issues with admissibility of evidence could arise, so it cannot be done. That's the discussion, right? Who is right?
[Lim Chan-jong] To be precise, joint investigative teams in their current form will no longer be possible. In short, a joint team premised on both prosecutors and judicial police officers having investigative power to conduct joint investigations won't work. That's because with the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecutor's investigative authority itself was deleted, so prosecutors must not conduct any investigative acts at all.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Lim Chan-jong] But what the Ministry of the Interior and Safety or the police are talking about is having the police conduct the investigation. To make that investigation more efficient and swift—for instance, previously police at a station investigated, requested a warrant, and prosecutors had to bring files from the prosecution office to explain to prosecutors to request warrants—if prosecutors are in the next room and they talk over coffee or meals often, wouldn't that be more efficient?
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Lim Chan-jong] In short, the argument from the Interior Ministry side is whether a collaborative body can be created to cooperate more closely and efficiently on warrant requests and indictments.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Lim Chan-jong] But the Ministry of Justice and prosecution argue that in actual practice, that could cause many problems. Because prosecutors have no investigative authority, if prosecutors appear involved in the investigation in any form, or if the organization bears such a name, the defendant after indictment could go to court and argue, "I was subjected to an illegal investigation, and all this evidence is invalid."
[Kim Tae-hyun] Asking "Why is a prosecutor involved there?"
[Lim Chan-jong] Right, asking why a prosecutor is involved. And since there are no legal precedents yet, they argue this could lead to various issues.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Listening to you, something just came to mind. In the Constitution, there is the prosecutor's warrant request right, like requesting search warrants or arrest warrants. While there is room for interpretation, doesn't requesting a warrant inevitably mean conducting an investigation to make a judgment before requesting the warrant?
[Lim Chan-jong] Regarding that, that was the legal theory of the Criminal Procedure Act and Criminal Act until now, and it was written in all textbooks.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Investigate and see, "Is this person guilty? After investigating, I see Lim Chan-jong is guilty, request an arrest warrant." Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
[Lim Chan-jong] I don't know what philosophy guided it, but in amending this Criminal Procedure Act, requesting an arrest warrant was defined as not being an investigative act. If that were considered an investigative act, then it would become unconstitutional.
[Kim Tae-hyun] So if the police conduct the full investigation and apply for a warrant, and the prosecutor cannot conduct any investigation and simply requests it, the prosecutor is doing nothing but taking the arrest warrant application from police, changing the form to a request, and sending it to court.
[Lim Chan-jong] Well, they can reject it.
[Kim Tae-hyun] So they are just doing mechanical work.
[Lim Chan-jong] They can reject it; and I don't know specifically how this will play out, but while it lacks admissibility as evidence, they say prosecutors can interview relevant parties to confirm facts, so they might do such actions. However, they wouldn't be able to make independent judgments through any action named 'investigation,' whether compulsory or otherwise.
[Kim Tae-hyun] This might be a difficult topic, but I think the biggest point of contention in the constitutional petition being filed by some civic groups and opposition parties will probably be this.
[Lim Chan-jong] Right. Because arrest is an act that limits a person's liberty most severely. The basis for arrest is the warrant request right under the Constitution, and whether that warrant request right is an investigative act premised on investigation will determine its unconstitutionality.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Naturally, it assumes investigation; otherwise, it's no different from giving warrant request power to the police. If all substantive work is done by police, and prosecutors just review for typos or errors before forwarding it to court, what meaning does requesting it have?
[Lim Chan-jong] In that case, as people are saying, rather than an investigation, it becomes a sort of committing magistrate role. Instead of an investigative act, deciding whether to request a warrant becomes an act of reviewing what the police brought.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. That seems to be a major point of contention, which is why I mentioned it. Then there are concerns that the joint prosecution-police investigative team looking into the Itaewon tragedy might face setbacks. Bereaved families are also expressing concern about this. Did the Democratic Party not consider this during the legislative process? Was it a matter of "let's abolish it first"?
[Lim Chan-jong] As I mentioned, the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office still argue that without certain grounds provisions, controversy over illegal investigations could arise during joint investigations. They mentioned this during the recent briefing as well. That's why before the Criminal Procedure Act revision passed the National Assembly, there were partial revision bills accepting the positions of the Ministry of Justice and SPO. Since special prosecutors and CIO prosecutors are allowed to investigate, there were partial revision proposals aimed at recognizing investigative authority for prosecutors joining joint investigative teams as well, but those were not accepted.
[Kim Tae-hyun] I have another question. What the President said that day—"I haven't read the exact articles of the Criminal Procedure Act"—and then asked: "Is prosecutor investigation explicitly forbidden in the Criminal Procedure Act, or is there simply no legal basis provision allowing investigation?" What is the answer to that?
[Lim Chan-jong] But those are essentially the same thing. As an attorney, you know better than I do that investigation is an act where state power most severely restricts individual basic rights. When state power restricts citizens' basic rights, it's not a matter of 'if it's not forbidden, you can do it,' but rather it can only be done when there is clear legal authority, justified under the Constitution. If that legal authority called investigative power is deleted, obviously investigations cannot be conducted.
[Kim Tae-hyun] I don't remember exactly, but there used to be a clause saying "Prosecutors may investigate under certain circumstances," and that clause was simply removed?
[Lim Chan-jong] Right. I'm confusing the exact number, but it should be Article 196; the clause defining prosecutors' investigative authority itself was removed.
[Kim Tae-hyun] I see. And as a supplementary measure, they proposed mandatory referral of all cases for 7 major crime categories, mainly sex crimes, elder abuse, child abuse, etc. What does mandatory referral of all cases mean?
[Lim Chan-jong] To put it simply:
[Kim Tae-hyun] Child abuse, domestic violence, sex crimes, child sex crimes, stalking, abuse of disabled persons, and elder abuse—that's how it's listed.
[Lim Chan-jong] Yes. Limited to these 7 major crimes, this concept existed continuously before the 2021 prosecution-police investigative power reform. It was a concept maintained for decades. What it meant was that before 2021, if police investigated and found evidence supporting charges, they referred the case with an opinion for indictment.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Lim Chan-jong] But before 2021, if police investigated and thought "this isn't a case for indictment," they couldn't close it on their own and still had to refer it. In short, all cases were referred, whether with an opinion to indict or not to indict.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Lim Chan-jong] However, when prosecution-police investigative powers were adjusted in 2021, police gained independent authority to terminate cases with non-referral decisions. In short, police only referred cases they believed required indictment, and if they found no suspicion, they didn't need to send it to prosecutors and could close it themselves.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Lim Chan-jong] But with supplementary investigations abolished, criticism mounted that vulnerable groups would become even more exposed regarding these 7 major crimes. As an interim remedy, the Democratic Party proposed that while supplementary investigations cannot be allowed for these 7 major crimes against vulnerable groups, police can no longer unilaterally close cases on no-suspicion grounds; instead, all cases must be referred so prosecutors can screen them once more. That was the promised measure.
[Kim Tae-hyun] They will refer all those cases to the prosecution?
[Lim Chan-jong] Right. They will send them to prosecutors.
[Kim Tae-hyun] But what I'm curious about is: if prosecutors cannot investigate, what good is receiving the paperwork?
[Lim Chan-jong] They can request supplementary investigations.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Like asking "Officer, this looks wrong, please check it one more time"?
[Lim Chan-jong] Those who criticize this, arguing it's not a real remedy, point to three main issues. First, why only the 7 major crimes against vulnerable groups? What about fraud or...
[Kim Tae-hyun] Voice phishing is excluded?
[Lim Chan-jong] It's not listed here, since it's fraud. Issues are raised about what happens to fraud, real estate/lease fraud, or voice phishing. Second, since prosecutors cannot conduct supplementary investigations themselves, as you mentioned, they can only ask the same police officer or another officer to do supplementary investigation, which isn't a real alternative.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Right.
[Lim Chan-jong] Third, crimes without direct victims like bribery or Public Official Election Act violations are left even more vulnerable. Critics question whether focusing only on 7 major crimes makes sense when those crimes are also exposed.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Calling them 7 major crimes, it really looks like 3 main categories: sex crimes, child sex crimes, and stalking are grouped together; child abuse and disabled abuse are grouped as abuse; and domestic violence. Doesn't that make about 3 main categories?
[Lim Chan-jong] Depends on how you divide them. Another issue is charge designation. For example, in the Busan kick-drop case, though there's debate over whether supplementary investigation led to sex crime charges, in similar cases where it's ambiguous whether to apply sex crime charges or severe injury, the victim may request sex crime charges, but police refer it to prosecutors applying only severe injury charges.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Then it wouldn't fall under these 7 categories.
[Lim Chan-jong] Exactly, it wouldn't be included here. So questions arise about whether this functions as a real solution.
[Kim Tae-hyun] I see. With these changes, victims like Kim Jin-ju from the Busan kick-drop case worry: "Previously prosecutors reviewed cases once more, but without that, who can we trust?"
[Lim Chan-jong] Yes.
[Kim Tae-hyun] In response, the Democratic Party presented a remedy: making court-appointed defense attorneys mandatory for vulnerable victims of the 7 major crimes, attempting to solve the burden of having to hire private attorneys. Does this serve as a real alternative?
[Lim Chan-jong] I want to be clear on this point: calling this a real alternative is quite problematic. Because this system has existed since 2019. As you know, victim court-appointed representative system has been around since 2019.
[Kim Tae-hyun] For context, when a sex crime occurs, a court-appointed attorney is automatically assigned to the victim right from the police stage. So it's something already being done.
[Lim Chan-jong] It's been done since 2019. Representative Seo Young-kyo claimed to have created this late last year, but what actually happened was expanding the program—which previously covered child abuse, sex crimes, disabled abuse, and human trafficking victims—to include victims of violent crimes like murder, robbery, and rape through a legal amendment passed late last year.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Expanding from sex crimes to general violent crimes.
[Lim Chan-jong] Yes, and that took effect in June this year. So firstly, it's hard to call it a new alternative, because it coexisted with prosecutors' supplementary investigations since 2019. Just because an existing system remains after supplementary investigations are gone doesn't make it a replacement.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Right.
[Lim Chan-jong] Let me tell you about the reality. How much do you think court-appointed attorneys get paid per case?
[Kim Tae-hyun] Around 300,000 won?
[Lim Chan-jong] They get 250,000 won.
[Kim Tae-hyun] 250,000 won?
[Lim Chan-jong] That's 250,000 won before tax. And there are two types: full-time court-appointed attorneys who only handle these cases, and non-full-time ones who handle other cases and get paid per case. There are only 45 full-time court-appointed attorneys in total nationwide.
[Kim Tae-hyun] In the entire country?
[Lim Chan-jong] Yes, 45 nationwide.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Really?
[Lim Chan-jong] And there are 576 non-full-time attorneys, which actually decreased from 601 last year. Because frankly, it's not a job lawyers are eager to take.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Lim Chan-jong] According to last year's statistics, full-time attorneys handled an average of 263 cases per lawyer, while non-full-time attorneys handled 46 cases. And as mentioned, non-full-time attorneys get paid 250,000 won per case. In the movie 'The Unjust' over a decade ago, a court-appointed attorney gets angry saying, "Do you know how much I get for this? 300,000 won!"
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes, that line.
[Lim Chan-jong] More than a decade has passed, and 250,000 won isn't for a one-hour consultation, but for handling the victim's entire case.
[Kim Tae-hyun] For the entire case.
[Lim Chan-jong] Of course, some do it with a strong sense of duty despite the low pay. But calling an existing system from 2019 an alternative to abolishing supplementary investigation power makes no sense, and claiming current policies can replace prosecutor services for victims is simply unrealistic.
[Kim Tae-hyun] I see. One more thing: the Serious Crime Investigation Agency launches in October, right? Are preparations going well? Because looking at recent reports, special investigation capabilities—where prosecution had built expertise over decades—need to transfer smoothly. I saw reports indicating that might not be going smoothly.
[Lim Chan-jong] It's early to say, but here's how to view it. I don't think filling personnel will be a huge problem. Among prosecutors, not everyone is refusing to go; some actually want to go. Typically, prosecutors who already plan to leave the prosecution for various reasons.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Even if it means stepping down in rank?
[Lim Chan-jong] If a prosecutor decided to quit, they'll have to practice law. Building one or two years of experience at the newly established Serious Crime Investigation Agency before opening a practice significantly boosts their credentials as an attorney.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Everyone has a plan.
[Lim Chan-jong] Exactly. So among prosecutors planning to quit, especially deputy head prosecutors and department heads, there is considerable interest.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.
[Lim Chan-jong] Also, those who left prosecution to practice law but aren't doing well or have already made enough money show interest too. So it's not as if prosecutors won't go at all.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Right.
[Lim Chan-jong] But realistically, with October only two months away, launching right after hiring personnel raises issues. Once launched, prosecutors must transfer all cases within the agency's jurisdiction, and the agency must accept them all. Although transitional provisions allow prosecutors to continue cases near statute of limitations, questions remain whether the agency can handle that flood of cases immediately upon opening in October.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. A major upheaval is coming to the criminal justice system. How should ordinary citizens prepare?
[Lim Chan-jong] To be frank, I used the expression 'privatization of prosecution.' To make an easy comparison, it's like our healthcare system transitioning from one where anyone can easily visit a hospital for a minor cold or hairline fracture, to a system like the U.S. where visiting a hospital is so burdensome that people avoid going unless gravely ill.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Meaning it will cost a lot of money in the end.
[Lim Chan-jong] As a result, people must try their best to avoid becoming crime victims. Just as Americans value health insurance highly and save money in case of major illnesses, people may need to save funds—whether through insurance or other means—in case they unfortunately fall victim to crime, much like saving for college funds.
[Kim Tae-hyun] So whereas previously police and prosecution conducted thorough investigations when someone was victimized, now that might feel lacking, meaning individuals have to hire attorneys and handle things themselves.
[Lim Chan-jong] The old system wasn't perfect, but legal expenses are bound to rise and case durations will likely lengthen significantly.
[Kim Tae-hyun] Production staff outside wrote a question for me: "As a lawyer yourself, isn't this only beneficial for lawyers?" Let me answer that: lawyers will definitely benefit. I can guarantee that. As a lawyer who handles many criminal cases, lawyers will definitely benefit for two reasons. I'll explain why later since we're out of time today. It will definitely benefit lawyers, but for the general public, it doesn't look very beneficial. I'll share my experience next time I meet reporter Lim Chan-jong. We'll wrap up here today. That was SBS Legal Affairs Reporter Lim Chan-jong. Thank you.
[Lim Chan-jong] Thank you.
Copyright for this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing in full or quoting this interview,
please state the channel name and accurate program name as shown below.
[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.