KOR- Government's stance? Premised on abolishing the supplementary investigation power... a necessity of the times
- Side effects will also be carefully reviewed and supplemented, reflecting the President's concerns
- In the grand scheme of things, the stances of President Lee Jae-myung and the party are not different
- The Jang Yun-gi case does not suddenly prove the necessity of the supplementary investigation power
- It is one of the side effects we were already aware of, and we have discussed it sufficiently
- Side effects of abolishing the supplementary investigation power can be prevented by retaining the right to request supplementary investigation
- Abolish the right to request supplementary investigation as well? Absolutely cannot agree
- If indictments are made exactly as the police investigated, that is not the separation of investigation and prosecution
■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00)
■ Date: July 7, 2026 (Tuesday)
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Representative Kim Ki-pyo of the Democratic Party of Korea (Member of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee)
[Kim Tae-hyun]: While the Legislation and Judiciary Committee for the second half of the 21st National Assembly has been operating in a half-baked manner since last week amid the non-participation of the People Power Party, the Democratic Party is speeding up legislation for prosecution reform, including forming an internal task force to discuss abolishing the prosecution's supplementary investigation power. We will speak with Representative Kim Ki-pyo of the Democratic Party of Korea, a former prosecutor who has continued to serve as a member of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee in the second half following the first half. Hello, Representative.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Hello. I am Kim Ki-pyo, the National Assembly member for Bucheon-eul. Nice to meet you.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Representative, you are on the Legislation and Judiciary Committee again?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: That is how it turned out.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: The Legislation and Judiciary Committee is a march of suffering. You served in the first half, and now you are serving in the second half as well. Of course, you are a former prosecutor. Did you volunteer for this, or did the party strategically ask you to do it again?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: The Legislation and Judiciary Committee is known to be a very physically and mentally demanding standing committee.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: That is true.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Looking at the newly formed committee this time, many members have retained their seats, and there are some new faces as well. However, since prosecution reform must be completed in the second half of the 22nd National Assembly, as someone who has been continuously participating in those discussions, I felt that I should remain in the process until its completion, so I applied. It seems the party leadership also deemed it necessary and assigned me here.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: First of all, we need to resolve the issue of the supplementary investigation power. What is your personal stance on this—retaining it, completely abolishing it, or maintaining it restrictively?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Currently, of course, I am in favor of abolishing the supplementary investigation power. Beyond my personal thoughts, society, as well as our party and the government, have already aligned on the stance of abolishing the supplementary investigation power. Therefore, I think discussing whether to abolish it or not is somewhat meaningless now.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Personally, I also believe that, despite various controversies, the task of our times is that abolition is the right path.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Was it last Friday? There were reports that members of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee and Minister of Justice Jeong Seong-ho discussed this at a Democratic Party lawmakers' workshop. What kind of discussions took place at that time?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Regarding the overall schedule of the workshop, we discussed various plans for operating the National Assembly in the second half during the earlier part, and specifically, we discussed how each standing committee would lead the second half. During that process, Minister Jeong Seong-ho also came to our committee to join the discussion, and naturally, the issue of the supplementary investigation power was brought up.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: But first, from the perspective of the committee members, since the government's stance has been settled as abolishing the supplementary investigation power,
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Former Prime Minister Kim Min-seok said so.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: That is correct. I understand that when the Minister expressed his personal opinion at the time, he spoke in favor of having the supplementary investigation power.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: However, on that day, he said that since the government's stance is to abolish the supplementary investigation power, let us discuss it based on that premise. At that meeting, several lawmakers naturally discussed that we must carefully review the side effects pointed out in the event of abolishing the supplementary investigation power, and that we must pay close attention to how those aspects will be institutionally supplemented.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: So the side effects were also discussed?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Yes. If other sectors claim that there are such side effects, the political circle must respond by saying either there is no problem in that regard, or that although there is a problem, it will disappear if we improve the system in this way. Therefore, we are naturally discussing that part.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: But Representative, the President has consistently said that his personal conviction is that at least some part of the supplementary investigation power should be left to prevent side effects. However, since legislation is done by the National Assembly, he said he would watch the party's deliberation process and leave it to the party. In the end, the President made it clear that his conviction is to retain the supplementary investigation power. Yet, as soon as the party received this, they went straight toward complete abolition, with no deliberation process in sight. From the President's perspective, he might feel quite disappointed.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: The President was personally a legal professional, so I believe he naturally has concerns about how the system would operate. Furthermore, as President, while contemplating how the overall national judicial system should be structured, I understand that he spoke from the perspective of whether there should be a supplementary investigation power, even if only as an exception.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: In that regard, we will naturally keep that in mind when the party discusses the supplementary investigation power.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: However, I think there is common ground on this point. That is, when looking at whether the system abolishes or maintains the supplementary investigation power, going in either direction has its advantages and disadvantages.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: That is true.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: There are advantages, and there can also be side effects. Then, under the grand premise of abolishing the supplementary investigation power, we can fully discuss whether to grant some exceptional investigative powers to address the side effects the President is thinking of and the problems raised by some in society, or whether to abolish it 100% and supplement it with other institutional devices.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Therefore, in the grand scheme of things, I believe that what the President said and what the party is discussing are not different.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: The President also said it should be exceptionally retained due to side effects, and during the discussion between the committee members and Minister Jeong Seong-ho, several lawmakers reportedly said we should find a way to minimize the side effects.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: That is correct.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: However, as you well know, the timing is coincidental, but this issue of the murder of high school girl Jang Yun-gi has arisen in Gwangju. Of all places, in Gwangju, which is the support base of the ruling party. In the end, the head of the investigation team at the Gwangju Gwangsan Police Station was urgently arrested on charges of destroying evidence, and Jang Yun-gi's father is at the main office of the Gwangju Metropolitan Police Agency. Due to the issue of evidence destruction, the prosecution ultimately conducted a supplementary investigation and changed the charge from murder to rape-murder, didn't they?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: That is correct.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: In a way, this could be a prime example showing that the supplementary investigation power is necessary. What do you think?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: When discussing the abolition of the supplementary investigation power, these points were naturally discussed sufficiently. The fact that some raise concerns about such side effects and that institutional supplementation is needed has already been discussed within the party and the government. In other words, it is not a problem that we were completely unaware of and only newly recognized through the Jang Yun-gi case.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: So you already knew about it?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Yes. How to handle it when these kinds of problems arise. We would consider their proportion in overall cases, but the point is that such things should not happen at all.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: That is true.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: When the supplementary investigation power is abolished, we cannot allow a situation where such issues are not screened at all and just pass through. In my view, rather than it being a matter of needing the supplementary investigation power, if we contemplate how such parts can be screened without issues even if the supplementary investigation power is abolished, I believe institutional supplementation is fully possible.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Since you served as a prosecutor for a long time, what if the prosecution did not have the supplementary investigation power in this case? Then, the Gwangju Gwangsan Police Station would handle it on their own, the real doll would disappear, the cable ties would disappear, and they would just forward the case as murder. Then, the prosecutor would have no choice but to indict, right? If the supplementary investigation power completely disappears now.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: In other words, if we eliminate the supplementary investigation power, we need a supplementary device for it. We cannot let a prosecutor judge based solely on what the police have investigated when it is insufficient. That is why some say the supplementary investigation power is necessary, but from the perspective of abolishing it, the design direction of the system is to resolve it by requesting the police to conduct a supplementary investigation instead of doing it directly. The Jang Yun-gi case is actually about having the eye to see the case. When the record comes to the prosecutor, thinking "this is a bit strange"—that eye to see the case is actually a major portion.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: That is true.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Then, this can actually be done by conducting the supplementary investigation directly, or by saying, "re-investigate these specific points and submit it again,"
[Kim Tae-hyun]: A request for supplementary investigation?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Yes. I believe that if the supplementary investigation power is abolished, the right to request supplementary investigation must naturally be retained. I think we need to create a system where that right to request supplementary investigation is actually effective.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Then, even in a case like the Jang Yun-gi case, when first looking at the case record, even if the prosecutor does not directly investigate, they can use their eye to say, "this part is strange, verify this part again and submit it." This is fully possible through such a method.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: However, reporting or claiming as if such things would be completely impossible once the supplementary investigation power is gone is also excessive, in my opinion.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: But some within the ruling party argue that even the right to request supplementary investigation that you mentioned should be nipped in the bud.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: I can absolutely not agree with that. This is because the separation of investigation and prosecution means the police conduct the investigation and the prosecutor does the prosecution. If the separation of investigation and prosecution means the prosecutor simply judges, indicts, or drops charges exactly as the police investigated, then investigation and prosecution actually become joined.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: That is true.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: In other words, if the prosecutor mechanically indicts according to the police's intention, how is that a separation? In fact, separating authority means that when the investigating side submits its investigation, the prosecuting side judges it and, if it is insufficient or needs further investigation, continuously sends it back and makes them re-investigate. That is how a true separation of investigation and prosecution is achieved. If the prosecutor cannot do anything and only processes what the police submit, it actually causes a problem where investigation and prosecution become joined.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: So the right to request must be retained?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Yes. The right to request must naturally be retained. If we abolish the power, the right to request must naturally remain, and I believe contemplating ways to make it effective is rather our duty in this era.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Regarding the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Act, there is a Democratic Party task force. I heard you are not participating in it.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: I am not participating. Since the Criminal Procedure Act amendment task force needs to quickly draft the basic bill, only a small number of people, such as from the Policy Committee and the floor leadership, are participating. So I am not in a position to participate.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Looking at what Kim Han-kyu, the senior vice floor leader for policy, said yesterday (July 6), they plan to process it before the national convention. That leaves a little over a month. Isn't that too fast? It seems we need to go through a deliberation process and create measures to minimize side effects.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Looking at the period alone, it might seem fast. However, in reality, the issue of the supplementary investigation power under the Criminal Procedure Act has been discussed for a very long time, and many bills have already been proposed and tabled in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Furthermore, before the discussion was handed over to the government, a task force had already been set up within the Democratic Party, conducting extensive discussions and producing results. So, processing it in a month does not mean the discussion is being rushed hastily. I can say there is accumulated energy built up over time.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: As for whether it is temporally possible before the national convention, we will have to work very hard under a tight schedule. However, even if it happens after the national convention, our goal is to ensure there are no issues by the time the Prosecution Office is launched on October 2, so I do not think it can be simply judged by whether it is before or after the national convention.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: In any case, our criminal justice system, which dates back to the 1950s and 60s, is changing. We are walking a path that no one has trodden before.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Yes.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: I recall the President made similar remarks regarding this. I remember him mentioning recently that we could first proceed with abolishing the supplementary investigation power, and if side effects occur, we can adjust the system then. If we proceed with abolishing the supplementary investigation power and, although we hope such things do not happen, cases like the Jang Yun-gi case occur and side effects become highly prominent, is there a possibility of revising it again, as the President mentioned?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: First, I find it somewhat difficult to agree with the host's statement about walking an untrodden path.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Is that so?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Because criminal justice systems vary greatly from country to country.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: I mean in our country.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Yes. But since we continuously review cases from other countries in our discussions—debating whether it is right to move toward models like the United States or Germany—we are not conducting an entirely new experiment.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Because those models exist abroad.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Yes. We are not conducting a new experiment, and I believe we are referencing them heavily.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Furthermore, regarding what the President said, I think he made a principled statement that even if the National Assembly discusses and decides on something slightly different from what he thinks, it can be institutionally revised again.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: However, I believe it is the duty of National Assembly members to make it perfect without leaving room for such institutional revisions.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: I see. Representative, the ruling and opposition parties are always fighting over the Legislation and Judiciary Committee. Listening to the ruling party, their argument seems right, and listening to the opposition party, their argument seems right regarding their respective claims over the chairmanship of the committee.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Yes.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: In the end, some raise the issue of whether the Legislation and Judiciary Committee is becoming a senate. They ask if it acts like a senate because of its power to review the system and wording of bills.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Yes.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: The National Assembly Research Service recently suggested abolishing the power to review the system and wording of bills. What is your take on that?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Indeed, since the power to review the system and wording of bills was introduced to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee in 1951, it has acted very much like a senate. This is the fundamental reason why the National Assembly is paralyzed over the chairmanship of the committee. In fact, during the 20th National Assembly, the Democratic Party's top priority bill was to practically abolish the power to review the system and wording of bills.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Is that so?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Yes, the Democratic Party's platform was to establish an organization under the National Assembly Speaker that specializes only in reviewing the system and wording of bills. However, during the discussion at that time, the United Future Party or the Liberty Korea Party claimed it was a path to legislative dictatorship, so that part was deleted. Thus, I can say this is a consistent stance of the Democratic Party, and I believe some improvement is needed.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: I see. Since you are here, let me ask you about this as well. Starting today (July 7), the amendment to the Information and Communications Network Act, also known as the "Fake News Punishment Act," goes into effect. The opposition party criticizes it as a "mouth-gagging law" that excessively shrinks freedom of expression.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Of course, in a democratic society, freedom of expression must be guaranteed to the maximum extent. However, even freedom of expression has certain limits, which are the limits of fundamental rights. With the development of personal media like YouTube, completely false, fabricated, and manipulated information is being distributed, defaming individuals and violating their privacy. This bill was proposed with the belief that the state must intervene to resolve this issue.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: It will not excessively shrink freedom of expression as some worry, and we cannot recognize freedom of expression for false or manipulated information. Our law was passed and will be implemented with that intent.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: In its operation, there won't be broad regulations that excessively shrink freedom of expression, right?
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Of course not. That cannot happen. It is the duty of politicians to provide a broad forum for expressing opinions, and how could politicians gain support by suppressing freedom of expression?
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Understood. Last question: the second special counsel has requested an extension of the investigation period. Should this be accepted? Because they have already extended it twice for 30 days each, but some evaluate that nothing has come out and the results are insufficient.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: As far as I know, it is not simply a matter of stalling because there are no results, or saying "give us more time and we'll do better from now on." I understand it from the perspective that they have grasped something, but are running out of time.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Yes.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Therefore, I believe that giving them more time to investigate now is actually a way to save time, rather than ending the case now, sending it to the police, and then reviewing and adding to it again from that point.
[Kim Tae-hyun]: Understood. We will end here. This has been Representative Kim Ki-pyo of the Democratic Party of Korea. Thank you.
[Kim Ki-pyo]: Thank you.
The copyright of the 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]
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.
Video News
Video News
