Is 'Significant' the Standard for Dismissal of Indictment? Growing Criticism Over Hasty Legislation

[Anchor]

As we exclusively reported yesterday (July 29), the latest amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act includes the abolition of supplementary investigation rights as well as the addition of new "grounds for dismissal of indictment." The backlash is fierce. Concerns are mounting that the vague phrasing of the newly added provisions will only cause confusion in trials, with some pointing out that it is hasty legislation mindful of the president's trial.

Continuing our coverage, here is reporter Shin Yong-il.

[Reporter]

The current Criminal Procedure Act limits the court's dismissal of an indictment—an exceptional decision to conclude a trial without determining guilt or innocence—to six clear criteria, such as when the court lacks jurisdiction due to the death of the defendant or when the prosecutor's indictment procedure violates the law.

However, heavy criticism has erupted over the two newly added provisions in the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act: "investigation with significant illegality" or "marked deviation from prosecutorial discretion."

Legal circles worry that criteria like "significant" and "marked" are unclear regarding who will judge them and how, leaving a high possibility that they will be exploited by parties involved in cases to intentionally delay trials.

[Jung Seung-hwan / Professor, Korea University Law School: If the validity of the indictment itself is continuously contested (even before entering the merits), it is obvious that the trial will be delayed. (Even if the court dismisses the indictment), does that mean the case is completely concluded? Not necessarily.]

During the bill review process, opposing opinions also emerged that it violates the constitutional principle of "clarity," increasing the likelihood of trial delays and undermining legal stability as outcomes would vary depending on the court's interpretation.

The general view within the legal community is that prosecutors' indictment powers are already adequately controlled under the current legal system through the warrant system, dismissal of indictments, and the court's ex officio investigations during trial proceedings.

[Han Sang-hee / Professor, Konkuk University Law School: I think it is an issue that can be handled sufficiently through current laws and court practices. I question whether explicitly stipulating and adding this in the law provides any legal advantages.]

Because of this, some in the legal sector are even criticizing it as hasty legislation aimed at establishing a legal basis related to President Lee Jae-myung's trial.

[Cha Jin-ah / Professor, Korea University Law School: It acts as a basis for enabling the court to issue a dismissal of indictment regardless of the instance level in the case of President Lee Jae-myung. It gives (prosecutors) the justification to say, 'Since it falls under the grounds for dismissal of indictment, we will withdraw the indictment.']

As the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act passes through the National Assembly and heads toward implementation, legal circles are increasingly concerned that confusion will ensue due to the grounds for dismissal of indictment that were suddenly added without public discussion.

(Reported by Yang Hyun-chul | Video by Lee Seung-jin | Graphics by Jang Chae-woo)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.