[Anchor]

We will now delve deeper into the issues surrounding the abolition of supplementary investigation rights with political reporter Go Jeong-hyeon.

Q. What are the core arguments put forward by the ruling and opposition parties?

[Reporter Go Jeong-hyeon: First, the Democratic Party argues that side effects can be minimized by enhancing the effectiveness of the right to request supplementary investigations. They suggest that even if prosecutors do not conduct investigations directly, they can demand that police complete supplementary investigations within a maximum of two months. They believe that by strengthening the prosecutor's power to demand corrective measures and reinvestigations, there are double and triple checks on police authority, which can resolve concerns about delays in case processing or cases being buried. However, the People Power Party criticizes this, arguing that as cases bounce back and forth between prosecutors and police, processing time only increases. They also point out that requests for supplementary investigations or disciplinary action against police are merely requests; if the police respond that there is no issue, there is no way to intervene. However, looking at cases like the Jang Yun-gi case, it is true that one cannot help but wonder if a proper investigation into such shocking allegations could have been conducted if prosecutors had been unable to carry out supplementary investigations.]

Q. The Democratic Party's plan to process the bill before the August 17 national convention?

[Reporter Go Jeong-hyeon: The Democratic Party is poised to begin deliberations in the Legislation and Judiciary Committee subcommittee tomorrow, July 10, and finish processing the bill before the August 17 party leadership election. The Democratic Party cites the need for the Criminal Procedure Act to be handled beforehand so that the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Service, which are set to launch on October 2, can function properly as one of the reasons for rushing the legislation. However, there is also analysis that the reason the Democratic Party set the timeline before the national convention is to prevent the possibility of internal division, as the debate over whether to maintain, abolish, or partially abolish supplementary investigation rights could emerge as a major issue during the convention. Furthermore, among supporters and party members who desire the complete abolition of prosecutorial investigative powers, there is a sentiment to finish the abolition of supplementary investigation rights before the national convention—in other words, when the power of the party members is at its peak. In this situation, party leadership candidate and former Prime Minister Kim Min-seok, who had been aligning with President Lee Jae-myung's stance on allowing exceptions for supplementary investigation rights, suddenly declared on June 25 that the abolition of supplementary investigation rights is the government's fundamental position. Meanwhile, former representative Jung Chung-rae has consistently argued that prosecutors should not be given even a shred of investigative power. This is seen as largely reflecting the influence of their hardline support base.]

Q. A bill with significant social impact... Is more deliberation needed?

[Reporter Go Jeong-hyeon: You are correct. This is a matter that changes the foundation of the 70-year-old judicial system, so careful deliberation is essential. Concerns about the rush have been raised within the Democratic Party as well. One Democratic Party lawmaker stated that they would soon hold a seminar to gather testimonies from crime victims and bring the necessity of supplementary investigations into public discourse. They also mentioned that they, along with several other lawmakers, plan to propose an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act next week that includes the partial retention of supplementary investigation rights.]

(Video Editing: Lee Seung-hee, Design: Kim Ye-ji)