▲ Ministry of Justice Building
Following the abolition of prosecutors' investigative command over special judicial police officers, grounds and regulations are being established to build a mutual cooperation system through guidance and advice.
The Ministry of Justice announced today (the 28th) that it will legislative-notice an amendment to the "Regulations on Mutual Cooperation and General Investigative Rules between Prosecutors and Judicial Police Officers" and a new enactment of the "Regulations on Mutual Cooperation between Prosecutors and Special Judicial Police Officers" until September 4.
Reflecting the shift from an investigative command relationship to a mutual cooperation relationship between prosecutors and special judicial police, the enactment details the prosecutor guidance and advice system.
Special judicial police officers are public officials who crack down on and investigate crimes in their respective fields across administrative agencies such as labor offices, customs offices, the National Tax Service, and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety.
In principle, special judicial police must respect and reflect prosecutors' guidance and advice in their investigations.
If they fail to comply with guidance and advice without justifiable cause, prosecutors can request supplementary investigations to address inadequate areas or order corrective measures to rectify investigative problems.
Instead of carrying direct coercive power like the former investigative command, an indirect control mechanism has been established to respond to unjustified non-compliance.
In cases where there is a justifiable reason for not implementing a prosecutor's guidance and advice, specific reasons must be stated in an opinion document and relevant materials must be filed in the case records.
However, pointing out that guidance and advice do not directly order the execution of individual investigations unlike past investigative commands, some critics note that this is insufficient to preemptively block side effects stemming from the abolition of the investigative command authority, such as sloppy investigations or the burying of cases.
In particular, concerns continue that because the scope of "justifiable cause" is not specific, special judicial police could interpret it arbitrarily, preventing the guidance and advice system from functioning properly as a control mechanism.
Grounds have also been newly established allowing the Public Prosecutors' Office to conduct training to strengthen the investigative capabilities of special judicial police and formulate general guidance and advice guidelines.
Furthermore, in fields where special judicial police possess expertise, they are allowed to form joint investigation teams with other investigative agencies and lead investigations.
Grounds were also laid for the state and local governments to support special judicial police budgets and the establishment of criminal justice information systems, as well as secure talented personnel through personnel preference measures.
The amendment to the investigative rules for prosecutors and judicial police officers includes contents where investigative agencies form joint investigation teams when major incidents occur, and the Public Prosecutors' Office designates corresponding dedicated departments or prosecutors to cooperate substantively.
This is interpreted as an alternative measure due to the difficulty of operating organizations in the form of conventional prosecution-police joint investigation headquarters, driven by the abolition of prosecutors' direct investigative powers.
For general cases where the expiration date of the statute of limitations is within six months, prosecutors and judicial police officers are obligated to cooperate.
Currently, mandatory cooperation is regulated only for election cases starting three months before the statute of limitations expires, but this has been expanded.
"Major cases," which are the main targets of cooperation between prosecutors and judicial police officers, now include seven types of crimes targeting vulnerable social groups such as sexual violence, child abuse, domestic violence, and stalking, alongside specialized cases in finance and securities, fair trade, technology leaks, and maritime crimes.
To reduce repetitive supplementary investigation requests, judicial police officers are required to consult with prosecutors before notifying them of supplementary investigation results, and prosecutors must present their opinions within a week.
Non-prosecution decision documents must specify and notify the grounds for judgment regarding complainants' legal and factual arguments as well as the reasons for non-prosecution.
Procedures such as audio recording during suspect interrogation and video recording procedures during search, seizure, and verification processes have also been detailed.
The enactment and amendment have been prepared in line with the revised Criminal Procedure Act taking effect on October 2, and the Ministry of Justice stated that it has gathered opinions from the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the preparation team for the opening of the Serious Crimes Investigation Office, the Korean National Police Agency, the Korea Coast Guard, and agencies housing special judicial police.
The Ministry of Justice plans to finalize the enactment and amendment procedures after gathering opinions from related agencies, experts, and the public during the legislative notice period.
(Photo: Provided by the Ministry of Justice, Yonhap News) (File Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.