- Expanding grounds for dismissal of prosecution? It means the court should control prosecutors' indictments
- Specifying existing law and codifying existing precedent... Political offensive is absurd
- Why specify it in the Criminal Procedure Act? Need to declare it clearly
- Supreme Prosecutors' Office's 'abstract' criticism is wrong... Court also agreed during legislative review
- Not a 'tack-on' at all... Included in the original bill from the start
- Democratic Party's task force proposal was never set as party line... Only a basis for discussion
- No detailed discussion at general meeting of lawmakers... Not needed as there was no disagreement in the party
- Fully disclosed in the Judiciary Committee... People Power Party should have obviously known
- Theoretically applicable to President Lee's trial, but applicable even without this clause
- Doesn't end with dismissal of prosecution... Re-indictment possible if illegality is resolved
- Report on Jung Sung-ho's 'hardliners' responsibility'? If the system is flawed, Congress is responsible
- President also has strong commitment to reform... Will obviously not exercise veto power

■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00)
■ Date: July 31, 2026 (Friday)
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Rep. Kim Yong-min, Democratic Party of Korea (Member of National Assembly Judiciary Committee)

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: The revision to the Criminal Procedure Act submitted to the plenary session of the National Assembly contains provisions expanding the grounds for courts to rule a dismissal of prosecution, drawing strong pushback from opposition forces. We are connected by phone with Rep. Kim Yong-min of the Democratic Party of Korea, who serves on the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee. Hello, Assemblyman.

▶ Kim Yong-min: Hello, I am Kim Yong-min.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Assemblyman, the measures expanding the grounds to rule a dismissal of prosecution were included in the Criminal Procedure Act amendment proposed by you and Rep. Park Eun-jung, correct?

▶ Kim Yong-min: Yes.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: First of all, with what intention did you prepare these provisions?

▶ Kim Yong-min: It is quite baffling that political offensives are being launched over this law. This law is simple. There are grounds for dismissal of prosecution that have been recognized under existing court precedents. It specifically codifies those grounds for dismissal of prosecution. Until now, media focus has been largely placed only on separating investigation and prosecution by the prosecution service as we pass the prosecution reform law and the Criminal Procedure Act. However, prosecution reform actually requires dispersing the concentrated powers of prosecutors, keeping them in check, and incorporating democratic control mechanisms such as judicial control or control by the public. You can see this as codifying and specifying judicial control over the power of prosecution—that is, the power to indict.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: I see.

▶ Kim Yong-min: As you well know, even if prosecutors are no longer able to conduct investigations from now on, they monopolize the right to request warrants and monopolize the power to indict. Korea operates under the principle of prosecution monopoly, and on the other hand, under the principle of discretionary prosecution, allowing prosecutors to decide at their discretion whether to indict even if a crime is acknowledged. Because prosecutors still hold immense discretion and authority over prosecution, how to control this power to indict has long been discussed. A representative example is specifying the existing provision in Article 327, Item 2 of the current Criminal Procedure Act. So this is judicial control—in other words, a method of control by the courts.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: So what you are saying is, "I did not create something new; I just inserted what is already established as theory in Supreme Court precedent, so what is the problem?" Is that right?

▶ Kim Yong-min: Yes, basically that is correct.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: But then, if Supreme Court precedents are already established, the courts would handle arbitrary indictments by prosecutors on their own according to those precedents even without specifying it in this law. What is the reason for specifically stipulating it in the Criminal Procedure Act?

▶ Kim Yong-min: There is a need to make it clearer, and to declare more explicitly to the courts and prosecutors—who will be prosecutors of the Prosecution Agency in the future—by putting provisions in the law that the power to indict can be controlled in such cases.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Kim Yong-min: For example, Article 327, Item 2 currently states, "When the procedure for instituting prosecution is invalid due to a violation of provisions of law." There are about two representative types of cases where courts ruled to dismiss prosecution under this provision.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Kim Yong-min: One is in cases of illegal investigation—such as sting operations or investigations conducted without statutory investigative authority—where the court rules to dismiss prosecution because it was an illegal investigation. Another is when the power of prosecution is abused, ruling to dismiss prosecution. A representative case of abuse of prosecution rights was the espionage fabrication case involving a Seoul Metropolitan Government official.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Mr. Yoo Woo-sung?

▶ Kim Yong-min: That's right. When evidence fabrication was exposed, prosecutors suddenly brought up a case they had previously decided not to indict and launched a retaliatory prosecution. The court ruled that it was retaliatory prosecution and an abuse of prosecution rights, confirming a final ruling to dismiss the prosecution. And regarding investigative authority that I mentioned earlier, everyone probably remembers a recent case. The court dismissed the prosecution in a case where special prosecutors indicted former Minister of Government Legislation Lee Wan-kyu and former Minister of Justice Park Sung-jae, ruling that it was a case over which the special prosecutor had no investigative power. You remember, right? Everyone probably remembers.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Kim Yong-min: That is a prime example embodying the established precedent that prosecution based on illegal investigation is dismissed.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Listening to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office side, regarding "deviation from prosecutorial discretion" among the two points, Supreme Court precedent defines it as "when prosecutors arbitrarily exercise prosecution rights and it is obvious that the defendant suffered substantial disadvantages." Compared to that, they argue this bill is too abstract and violates the principle of clarity. How do you view this criticism?

▶ Kim Yong-min: That argument is wrong.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Really? The Supreme Prosecutors' Office's argument?

▶ Kim Yong-min: Yes. That abuse of prosecution rights ruling mentioned earlier was actually a case I handled when I was a practicing attorney, and I received that ruling.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Oh, is that so?

▶ Kim Yong-min: Yes. Looking at that ruling, that part merely modifies the front section. In conclusion, the court rules that it is invalid as it constitutes a case where the prosecutor significantly deviated from prosecutorial discretion.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Kim Yong-min: So as grounds for invalidity, if you read the ruling, it clearly states "when prosecutorial discretion has been significantly abused." It is clearly written like that. But the Supreme Prosecutors' Office is only citing the front portion. We verified this with the court during the legislative review process. The court stated that regulating it as we currently do is appropriate, and the expert committee member also took the position that it is more appropriate.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. But the provisions on grounds for dismissal of prosecution were originally not included in the draft produced by the Democratic Party's task force, were they?

▶ Kim Yong-min: Yes, I believe so.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: It was inserted at the very end, right? But why wasn't this discussed from the beginning, and why was it slipped in at the last minute?

▶ Kim Yong-min: No, that is not true. Because you phrase it like that, and because SBS keeps reporting it that way, it makes it look as if something is strange. You need to abandon that perspective. Look, the discussion on the Criminal Procedure Act originally started with the bill I introduced.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Well, that is true.

▶ Kim Yong-min: And my bill served as the foundational bill. However, the bill I created was produced together with civil society, covering the overall Criminal Procedure Act that civil society had demanded for a long time. In order to handle it quickly in a tight schedule for separating investigation and prosecution this time, the party task force introduced a bill that condensed the investigation-prosecution separation aspect a bit more.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Kim Yong-min: However, discussions continued based on my bill as the baseline, because my bill covers everything. That is why issues like conditional release for arrest warrants, preliminary review of search and seizure warrants, and the prosecution review committee were continuously discussed during our review process. We discussed them, and this provision was also continuously discussed, with the court expressing active agreement on this part.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: So there were multiple proposals, including yours, and if I recall correctly, there were more than a dozen proposals.

▶ Kim Yong-min: Yes.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: But the proposal created by the Criminal Procedure Act task force—the proposal approved by the Democratic Party leadership and decided at the general meeting of lawmakers to proceed with—was...

▶ Kim Yong-min: No, it wasn't. You are continuously framing it strangely.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: I am asking out of curiosity.

▶ Kim Yong-min: What the Democratic Party decided as party line was not the task force proposal at all.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then what was it?

▶ Kim Yong-min: What was set as party line was the decision that among various issues, including my bill, certain key issues must be included. We never set the Democratic Party task force proposal specifically as party line. Nor was the task force proposal ever ratified as party line. You can consider the task force proposal as a baseline created to expedite discussions; it was never party line. Even now, it is not party line.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then was this specific proposal expanding grounds for dismissal of prosecution discussed at the general meeting of lawmakers?

▶ Kim Yong-min: I recall that this specific proposal was not discussed in detail. Besides this, there are quite a few provisions included that were not discussed in detail when establishing party line.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Well, that could be.

▶ Kim Yong-min: So what was raised when setting party line centered on matters that were controversial or where differing opinions among party lawmakers had surfaced. Dismissal of prosecution was in my bill from the beginning, and there was never a single objection within the party.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Is that so?

▶ Kim Yong-min: So there was no need to specifically debate it as party line.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Because there was no disagreement?

▶ Kim Yong-min: Yes.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then regarding its inclusion in the bill, was it discussed only among Democratic Party members on the Judiciary Committee, or was a consensus formed among floor leadership and other lawmakers as well?

▶ Kim Yong-min: As I mentioned earlier, other lawmakers—since this bill was already introduced by me on June 5 and fully disclosed—saw the bill I introduced, and I can clearly say that not a single objection was raised.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Kim Yong-min: And as for party leadership, I do not know directly since I did not communicate with leadership directly, but Rep. Kim Han-kyu, chief policy officer on our Judiciary Committee, consulted sufficiently with party leadership regarding the final measure handled by the committee, as far as I know. That is how it is usually done.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Then during the Judiciary Committee discussions, were People Power Party lawmakers aware that this was being included?

▶ Kim Yong-min: Of course they should have known.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: They should have known?

▶ Kim Yong-min: Yes. Because it was not held behind closed doors—we held subcommittee meetings nine times, and plenary meetings of the Judiciary Committee about three times on this bill alone. It was all disclosed during that process, recorded in shorthand transcripts, and my bill was introduced on June 5 so anyone could view it. They knew all about it. And as I mentioned earlier, the National Court Administration strongly voiced approval, saying they actively agree during the subcommittee process. The Ministry of Justice did not strongly deny or oppose it either. They merely asked to extend the expression a bit more by adding expressions you mentioned earlier, but we concluded after discussing that doing so was inappropriate and unnecessary. Throughout that process, we repeatedly asked the People Power Party to attend the Judiciary Committee, but they refused to join.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood.

▶ Kim Yong-min: We discussed all of this publicly.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: So regarding the People Power Party's claim that it is a 'tack-on', you are saying that is not the case.

▶ Kim Yong-min: That is absolutely not the case.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Then another claim from the People Power Party is, "Isn't this for President Lee Jae-myung's trial? Isn't this meant to have the court rule a dismissal of prosecution if withdrawal of indictment is blocked—if prosecutors or special prosecutors cannot withdraw the indictment?" The opposition claims this. What are your thoughts on that claim?

▶ Kim Yong-min: That is purely a political frame. Let me explain from two perspectives. First, dismissal of prosecution is a ruling by the court. So the court does it, not the executive branch. Withdrawal of indictment is done by prosecutors, and regarding the People Power Party's repeated argument about whether prosecutors, as public officials under the Lee Jae-myung administration, could be made to withdraw indictments—under the separation of powers, one might suspect that because they are executive officials under the president.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Kim Yong-min: However, the courts cannot operate like that under the separation of powers. A dismissal of prosecution is a judicial ruling by the court, so how can they argue this? Between withdrawal of indictment and dismissal of prosecution, dismissal of prosecution is much harder because it requires a judicial ruling by the court.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Kim Yong-min: And another perspective is that people understand receiving a dismissal of prosecution as if everything is finished, but that is not true. Investigation can be reopened and re-indictment can take place. What did Judge Lee Jin-gwan say when dismissing prosecution this time? He said that if an investigative agency with authority reinvestigates and re-indicts, guilt or innocence can be judged again. He stated that explicitly and publicly in the written ruling. So receiving a ruling to dismiss prosecution is not the end; if illegality is resolved and re-indictment occurs, guilt or innocence is judged again.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: But in any case, Assemblyman, Democratic Party lawmakers, among others, continue to claim that the prosecution's investigation into President Lee Jae-myung was wrong.

▶ Kim Yong-min: Yes.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: If that is revealed, could this provision theoretically be applied to the President's trial?

▶ Kim Yong-min: Theoretically it could be applied, but it would apply even without this provision. As I said earlier, because the original rule exists in Article 327, Item 2, whether this clause exists or not, if the investigation was illegal, prosecution can be dismissed even now. Nothing changes. We are merely putting a clear provision into law warning prosecutors not to exercise their prosecutorial discretion and power of indictment recklessly. Specifically, warning them not to act recklessly since these are already recognized in precedents. As this is controversial, even in precedent we discuss it, but newly appointed prosecutors might not know these precedents. Looking at Article 327, it serves as a concept informing them, "Since these grounds can lead to dismissal of prosecution, I must be more careful and check."

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Kim Yong-min: And I want to mention this. The Supreme Prosecutors' Office expresses that this law itself is vague or abstract, but the original provision in Article 327, Item 2 is even vaguer. It says, "When the procedure for instituting prosecution is invalid due to a violation of provisions of law." That provision is vaguer and leaves more room for interpretation. So specifying that an indictment through an illegal investigation leads to dismissal of prosecution—how much easier is that to interpret?

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Assemblyman, the Criminal Procedure Act will be processed once the filibuster finishes. However, looking at morning newspapers today, it was reported that Minister of Justice Jung Sung-ho recently told people around him, "Ultimately, responsibility must be borne by hardline lawmakers who led the abolition of supplementary investigative authority." How did you hear this statement?

▶ Kim Yong-min: First, if a system is designed improperly, it is true that the National Assembly bears responsibility. However, ensuring that public officials properly execute the designed system is a matter of official discipline, and a breakdown in official discipline can be another issue. I repeatedly emphasized to the Minister in the Judiciary Committee: please establish official discipline properly. And if there are gaps in system design, please keep informing us, and if necessary we can supplement it, so let's work on that together. This is not an issue where we should build walls against each other. If practical issues arise, the system can be adjusted accordingly.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Yes.

▶ Kim Yong-min: However, the separation of investigation and prosecution—because the combined power of investigation and prosecution has caused such immense harm to our society—proceeding to at least separate them is the spirit of the times and the core task of this prosecution reform, so we are clearly moving forward with this.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. Assemblyman, lastly and briefly: once this passes the plenary session, the President must sign it, but the opposition says the President should exercise veto power. You expect the President will not exercise veto power, right?

▶ Kim Yong-min: Of course. The President also has a very high commitment to reform, and he has announced his position on prosecution reform several times: complete separation of investigation and prosecution, and asking the National Assembly to go through a deliberation process. The National Assembly went through deliberation, and the Ministry of Justice also joined that process. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice stated in the Judiciary Committee that there is no need to even recommend exercising a veto.

▷ Kim Tae-hyun: Understood. We will end here for today. That was Rep. Kim Yong-min, member of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee from the Democratic Party of Korea. Thank you.

▶ Kim Yong-min: Thank you.

The copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing full text or citing this interview,
please state the channel name and accurate program name as below.

[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]