Contradictions and Clashes Within Revised Criminal Procedure Act Point to Inevitable Field Confusion

[Anchor]

The revised Criminal Procedure Act passed by the National Assembly contains numerous parts that clash not only with existing provisions but also with other legal systems. With a massive overhaul of related laws and regulations urgently needed, concerns are rising that future confusion is inevitable.

Reporter Jang Hun-gyeong has the details.

[Reporter]

The core of the revised Criminal Procedure Act is the complete deprivation of prosecutors' investigative powers.

Consequently, prosecutors will no longer be able to request warrants unless applied for by the police. The Supreme Prosecutors' Office pointed out that "the Constitution envisions prosecutors directly requesting warrants," adding that "there are unconstitutional elements."

[Park Jung-nan / Professor, Yonsei University Law School: Since it is the authority to control coercive investigations, it is naturally seen as possible for prosecutors to directly request warrants, and depriving them of this is inappropriate.]

Furthermore, regarding the detention, seizure, or search necessary for prosecutors to indict suspects transferred by the police, prosecutors will only be able to request warrants in the form of demanding supplementary investigations to the police.

However, the right to request the preservation of evidence during an investigation—which is also a type of investigative procedure—remains intact in the provisions.

Because the law was rushed, contradictions regarding investigative authority have emerged even within the revised Criminal Procedure Act.

[Jung Seung-hwan / Professor, Korea University Law School: Prosecutors who have the authority to indict need certain powers. When you try to eliminate all of that, systematic contradictions occur.]

The revised law also abolishes prosecutors' investigative command over special judicial police officers handling drug, tax, and economic crimes, limiting them to guidance and advice only.

Concerns are raised that prosecutors may effectively lose the opportunity to correct errors made by special judicial police or the cover-up of cases.

[Lee Chang-hyun / Professor, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Law School: What good is it to issue a request for a supplementary investigation a hundred times if you do not have the investigative power? Creating various systems will not make them all that effective.]

With the passage of the revised Criminal Procedure Act fundamentally altering a criminal justice system maintained for over 70 years, approximately 170 related laws require a massive overhaul, alongside about 1,000 lower-level regulations including Supreme Prosecutors' Office directives and bylaws.

With only about two months remaining until the full implementation of the revised Criminal Procedure Act, unless contradictions within the bill itself are resolved and related laws are properly amended, major confusion in the criminal justice field is expected to be unavoidable.

(Video Editing: Yu Mi-ra)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.