Amid the ongoing controversy over the "abolition of the prosecution's supplementary investigative power," Kim Jin-ju (pseudonym), the victim of the Busan "roundhouse kick" assault case, appeared at the National Assembly yesterday (July 14) holding a pair of jeans. It has been nearly a year since the abolition of supplementary investigative powers was discussed as a follow-up to stripping the prosecution of its direct investigative powers, but she said no one had talked about how victims would be protected during that time.

Kim said, "This proposition, which is being discussed while excluding crime victims who are the core parties, cannot be divided into true or false in the first place." The debate over supplementary investigative powers has so far been treated, under the leadership of the Democratic Party, as a matter of to what extent the authority of the prosecution—specifically, prosecutors—should be stripped. However, Kim appealed that the issue is about who, whether the prosecution or the police, will look into the case again when a victim feels wronged.
Kim brought the very pair of jeans from the time of the incident to the National Assembly. Kim said of the jeans, "In fact, they were the exact same evidence at both the police and prosecution stages," adding, "However, the mere fact that someone failed to find [the evidence] while someone else did can serve as supporting evidence for this entire debate on supplementary investigative powers." This is a real-life example of how supplementary investigative powers serve as a victim protection mechanism to re-verify victims' appeals missed by initial investigations, missing evidence, and incorrectly applied charges.
Kim's testimony was not just an emotional appeal. She explained why the criminal justice system must be designed with checks and verifications among multiple agencies. In the same context, Kim spoke toward the hardliners of the pan-ruling camp who advocate for the complete abolition of supplementary investigative powers. Previously, former Democratic Party lawmaker Choe Kang-wook faced public backlash after appearing on a YouTube broadcast on July 8 and mentioning the Jang Yoon-ki case—where the police conducted a poor investigation and practically tried to cover up the truth—saying, "In a situation where supplementary investigative powers are gone, if I were a prosecutor, I would inform the media."
To compensate for this situation, the Democratic Party's Criminal Procedure Act Revision Task Force proposed a plan to "require the police to implement the prosecution's request for supplementary investigation without delay, and to demand the exclusion from duties, disciplinary action, and replacement of police officers who do not comply without a valid reason." However, Kim asserts that relying on the goodwill of the police, who are already struggling to handle cases, to conduct supplementary investigations on their own will not help crime victims.
Kim worried that if the Criminal Procedure Act is revised in its current form, private sanctions could become more appealing. Voices calling for caution regarding the abolition of supplementary investigative powers are also emerging within the Democratic Party. At yesterday's (July 14) general meeting of lawmakers, conviction-filled remarks opposing complete abolition were reportedly made, such as "There must be an agreement that even the socially vulnerable can understand. Limited supplementary investigative powers are necessary" (Representative Suh Mi-hwa, who is visually impaired) and "If we remove even the minimum safeguards, any future failures in investigations will all become the responsibility of the Democratic Party" (Representative Lee So-young, a former lawyer). Representative Hong Kee-won, along with 10 other lawmakers, proposed a separate amendment bill, which includes provisions allowing prosecutors to conduct supplementary investigations as they do now for crimes against the socially vulnerable and livelihood crimes, and requiring the police to transfer all cases of sexual violence and child or elderly abuse to the prosecution.

President Lee Jae-myung, who had previously suggested reviewing whether to leave very exceptional cases, also said at a Cabinet meeting, "Will things go well just because we raise our voices, speak strongly, and point fingers? It might feel good, but it is difficult to get a good result. The moment you inject a needle, if you tense up out of fear, the syringe breaks. You have to inject it gently. Reform is similar." His remarks were interpreted as emphasizing deliberate discussion at the National Assembly level.
Nevertheless, Democratic Party hardliners remain unmoved. Former Representative Jung Chung-rae posted on Facebook, "Complete abolition of supplementary investigative powers! This is the banner and symbol of the Democratic Party's prosecution reform. I will raise the banner higher," followed by sharing a media report headline reading "About 10 Ruling Party Lawmakers Call for Caution on Complete Abolition of Supplementary Investigative Powers at General Meeting," writing, "This is truly serious. Why has the atmosphere suddenly become like this... It's depressing." Representative Kim Yong-min wrote, "This is a similar trend to when the prosecution's direct investigative powers were abolished four years ago. All media and pro-prosecution experts appeared to criticize prosecution reform, and pushed by that, we ended up leaving two out of the six major crimes. The consequence of that is rebellion!"

Kim Jin-ju said as she concluded her testimony:
It sounded like a call to look back at where the debate on supplementary investigative powers should begin. Before asking "How should we divide the power of state organs?", we must ask "How can we better protect citizens from crime?" The political sphere must take its time to provide a thoughtful answer to Kim's testimony, which reminds us that reform that cannot answer this question is not true reform.