- Revised Criminal Procedure Act Strips Prosecution's Investigative Power... Existing Joint Prosecution-Police Investigation Teams Impossible
- Cooperative Body Possible? Defendant Could Raise Claims of Illegal Investigation
- Prosecution Can Reject Warrants, but Own Investigation Strictly Prohibited
- Proposals to Grant Investigative Power to Prosecutors in Joint Teams Also Rejected
- Mandatory Transfer of All Cases for 7 Major Crime Types... Aiming to Prevent Police's Own Non-Referral and Closure
- But Prosecutors Can Only Demand Supplementary Investigation, Not a Practical Alternative
- Fraud, Bribery, Public Official Election Act Violations Are Even More Vulnerable
- Sex Crimes Excluded from Mandatory Transfer if Referred Only as Bodily Harm
- Public Defenders for Victims? Is an Existing System from 2019 an Alternative?
- Fee for Entire Case Is 250,000 KRW... Only 45 Full-Time Public Defenders Nationwide
- Two Months Until Heavy Crimes Investigation Agency Launch... Can It Handle the Flood of Transferred Cases?
- 'Prosecution Privatization' Likely to Raise Legal Costs and Lengthen Proceedings

■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00 AM)
■ Date: Thursday, August 6, 2026
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: SBS Legal Affairs Reporter Lim Chan-jong

[Kim Tae-hyun] Reporting notes unpacked by a legal reporter roaming Seocho-dong. "The Man Living with the Law," or "Bopsanam" for short, SBS Legal Affairs Reporter Lim Chan-jong is with us. Hello.

[Lim Chan-jong] Hello.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Did you have a good vacation by any chance?

[Lim Chan-jong] Yes, it was good.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Is it hot?

[Lim Chan-jong] It's hot, isn't it? It seems very hot today as well.

[Kim Tae-hyun] So was your vacation spot hot too?

[Lim Chan-jong] I didn't actually go on vacation.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Then it must have been hot. What story did you prepare today? Is it the Criminal Procedure Act again?

[Lim Chan-jong] I don't know how many months I've been talking about this. Maybe not months, but definitely over a month. I looked into what will happen next, and what the key issues are following the Criminal Procedure Act amendment and the abolition of supplementary investigations.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Let's start with this today. Was it at the recent briefing to the President by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety? The President brought up this topic, making it a hot issue. You know things like joint prosecution-police investigation teams.

[Lim Chan-jong] Yes.

[Kim Tae-hyun] We've always had those, where the prosecution and police set up a headquarters together and conduct joint investigations. But the prosecution lost its investigative powers. Prosecutors can't directly investigate anymore. They can't do supplementary investigations either. So, can a joint prosecution-police investigation team even exist? That was the President's question. To that, Minister of the Interior and Safety Yun Ho-jung said a joint team cooperating among the Public Prosecution Office, the Heavy Crimes Investigation Agency, and the police could be formed. Minister of Justice Jung Sung-ho said if a prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Office participates in an investigation, issues with admissibility of evidence could arise, so it cannot be done. That's the debate, right? Who is correct?

[Lim Chan-jong] To be exact, joint investigation teams in their current form will no longer be possible. In short, joint investigation teams based on the premise that both prosecutors and judicial police officers can investigate together will be impossible. That's because, with the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecutor's investigative authority itself was deleted, so prosecutors must absolutely not engage in investigative acts itself.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.

[Lim Chan-jong] But what is being said, especially from the Ministry of the Interior and Safety or the police, is that police will do the investigation. However, to make that investigation more efficient and prompt—in short, previously, police investigated at the police station, applied for a warrant, and for the prosecutor to request the warrant, they had to bring documents to the prosecution office and explain it to the prosecutor—if a prosecutor is in the next office, drinking coffee and having meals together to talk, wouldn't it be more efficient?

[Kim Tae-hyun] Right.

[Lim Chan-jong] Simply put, the Ministry of the Interior and Safety's side argues that a joint body could be created to collaborate more closely and efficiently on warrant requests and indictments.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.

[Lim Chan-jong] But from the Ministry of Justice or the prosecution's side, they argue that in practice, this could cause many problems. Because prosecutors have no investigative power, if a prosecutor appears to be involved in the investigation in any way, or if the organization is named as such, a defendant who is later indicted could go to court and claim, "I was subjected to an illegal investigation. All this evidence is void."

[Kim Tae-hyun] "Why was a prosecutor involved there?"

[Lim Chan-jong] Questions like "Why was a prosecutor involved?" could be raised, and since there is no legal precedent yet, they argue it could create various issues.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Listening to this, something suddenly crossed my mind. In the Constitution, there is the prosecutor's right to request warrants, specifically search and seizure warrants or arrest warrants. A prosecutor requesting a warrant—though open to interpretation—doesn't that inevitably mean they should conduct an investigation, make a judgment, and then request a warrant?

[Lim Chan-jong] Regarding that, that was the legal doctrine of the Criminal Procedure Act and criminal law until now, as written in all textbooks and references.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Investigating and deciding, "This person is guilty? I investigated and found Lim Chan-jong guilty, so I request an arrest warrant." For example, isn't that how it's supposed to work?

[Lim Chan-jong] I don't know what philosophy guided it, but in amending the Criminal Procedure Act this time, requesting an arrest warrant was defined as not being an investigative act. If it were considered an investigative act, then it would conflict with the Constitution.

[Kim Tae-hyun] So if the police investigate everything and apply for a warrant, and prosecutors cannot conduct any investigation and simply request it, then prosecutors do nothing except change the police's warrant application into a request and send it to court.

[Lim Chan-jong] They could reject it, though.

[Kim Tae-hyun] It's just mechanical work then.

[Lim Chan-jong] They can reject it. I don't know specifically how it will play out, but while it lacks admissibility as evidence, they say prosecutors can interview involved parties to verify facts, so they might do such things. However, they cannot make independent determinations through acts labeled as investigation, whether coercive or otherwise.

[Kim Tae-hyun] This might be a difficult topic, but as I see it, some civic groups and opposition parties are saying they will file a constitutional complaint. I think this will be the biggest issue.

[Lim Chan-jong] Right. Because detention is, in a way, the act that most severely restricts a person's liberty. The basis for detention is the constitutional right to request warrants. Whether that warrant request right is an investigative act premised on investigation or not will determine its unconstitutionality.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Naturally it presumes investigation; otherwise, it's virtually giving the police the warrant request authority. If police prepare all substantive materials and prosecutors just review them for typos or mistakes and send them to court, what meaning is there in the prosecutor requesting it?

[Lim Chan-jong] In that case, it's not an investigation; as people are saying now, the prosecutor becomes a kind of examining judge. Rather than investigating, deciding whether to request a warrant becomes an act of judging what the police brought.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. I brought this up because it seems like it will be a major issue. Then, right now, the joint prosecution-police investigation team working to uncover the truth behind the Itaewon disaster could hit a snag. The bereaved families are expressing concern about this. Did the Democratic Party not consider this during the legislative process? Was it a mindset of "let's abolish it first"?

[Lim Chan-jong] As I mentioned earlier, the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office still argue that without a clear legal basis, controversy over illegal investigation could arise during joint investigations. They mentioned it during the recent briefing as well. In fact, before the Criminal Procedure Act amendment passed the National Assembly, some proposed amendments sought to accommodate the positions of the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office—since prosecutors in special prosecutors' offices or the CIO are allowed to investigate—to grant investigative powers to prosecutors joining joint investigation teams as well. But those proposals were not accepted.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Another question comes to mind. What the President said that day—"I haven't read the articles of the Criminal Procedure Act"—and then he asked: Is prosecutors' investigation currently prohibited under the Criminal Procedure Act, or is there simply no legal provision authorizing them to investigate? What is the answer?

[Lim Chan-jong] But those are essentially the same thing. As you know better as an attorney, an investigation is an act by state authority that severely restricts individual fundamental rights. When state power restricts citizens' fundamental rights, it cannot act merely because something isn't explicitly banned; it requires clear legal grounds justified under the Constitution. If that legal basis—the investigative authority—is deleted, then obviously investigations cannot be conducted.

[Kim Tae-hyun] I don't recall precisely, but there used to be a clause saying prosecutors may investigate under certain circumstances. In short, that article was removed?

[Lim Chan-jong] Right. I'm a bit confused about the article number, but I believe it was Article 196. The article itself defining prosecutors' investigative authority was removed.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Is that so? I see. And they offered a complementary measure. Looking at the seven major crime categories, they are mostly sex crimes, elderly-related, and child-related. It says they plan to mandate the referral of all cases for these seven major crime categories. What does mandatory referral of all cases mean?

[Lim Chan-jong] Simply put, referral of all cases means this:

[Kim Tae-hyun] It includes child abuse, domestic violence, sex crimes, child sex crimes, stalking, abuse of persons with disabilities, and elderly abuse.

[Lim Chan-jong] Yes. For those seven major crime categories, this concept always existed before the prosecution-police investigative power adjustment in 2021. It was a concept maintained for decades. Before 2021, if the police investigated and found sufficient grounds for prosecution, they referred the case with an opinion for indictment.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.

[Lim Chan-jong] But before 2021, even if police investigated and thought "this doesn't warrant prosecution," they couldn't close the case themselves and had to refer it. In short, every single case was referred regardless of whether the opinion was for or against indictment—that was mandatory full-case referral.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Right.

[Lim Chan-jong] However, with the 2021 prosecution-police investigative power adjustment, the police gained independent closure power through non-referral decisions. In short, police sent cases to prosecutors only if they believed indictment was warranted; if they deemed it groundless, they didn't need to send it to prosecutors and could close it themselves with a non-referral decision. That's how it became.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.

[Lim Chan-jong] As supplementary investigations are eliminated, criticism mounted that protection against the seven major crime categories targeting vulnerable groups would become even weaker. As a workaround, the Democratic Party promised that while supplementary investigations will absolutely not be allowed for the seven major crimes against vulnerable groups, police will no longer be allowed to close cases with a non-guilty opinion; instead, all cases must be referred so prosecutors can screen them once more.

[Kim Tae-hyun] You mean referring them to the prosecution?

[Lim Chan-jong] Right. Referring them to prosecutors.

[Kim Tae-hyun] But I'm curious. What good does receiving documents do if prosecutors can't investigate?

[Lim Chan-jong] Their argument is that prosecutors can at least request a supplementary investigation.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Like saying, "Investigator, this looks wrong, please take another look"?

[Lim Chan-jong] Those who criticize this and argue it isn't a proper workaround hold three main viewpoints. First, why should this apply only to the seven major crime categories targeting vulnerable groups? What about other crimes like fraud,

[Kim Tae-hyun] Voice phishing is excluded then?

[Lim Chan-jong] It's not listed here because it falls under fraud. There's the question of what happens with fraud cases like real estate lease scams or voice phishing. Second, since prosecutors cannot perform supplementary investigations themselves, as you mentioned, they can only request supplementary investigation from the officer who investigated it or another officer if that person is incompetent, which critics argue is no real alternative to supplementary investigation.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Right.

[Lim Chan-jong] Furthermore, another criticism is whether victimless crimes like bribery or Public Official Election Act violations—which are not among the seven major crimes—are actually more vulnerable. Critics question why the focus is solely on the seven major crimes when those areas are vulnerable as well.

[Kim Tae-hyun] They call it seven major crime categories, but to me it looks like three: sex crimes, child sex crimes, and stalking are essentially connected, child abuse and abuse of persons with disabilities fall under abuse, and domestic violence. Doesn't that make it about three categories?

[Lim Chan-jong] The categorization depends on how you look at it, but another issue is this: for example, take a case where the specific charge is in dispute. Though some say the charge in the Busan roundhouse kick case wasn't changed to a sex crime due to a prosecutor's supplementary investigation, setting that specific case aside, suppose there's a case where applying either a sex crime charge or a bodily harm charge is debated. The victim wants a sex crime charge applied, but the police omit the sex crime charge and refer the case to prosecutors only under charges like bodily harm.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Then it wouldn't be included here.

[Lim Chan-jong] Exactly, it wouldn't fall under those seven categories. Questions continue to be raised over whether this system can truly address such scenarios.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. The biggest concern raised, as also mentioned by Kim Jin-ju, the victim in the Busan roundhouse kick case, is about vulnerable groups and victims. In the past, prosecutors took another look, but without that, who can they trust now?

[Lim Chan-jong] Yes.

[Kim Tae-hyun] So as an alternative and workaround, the Democratic Party claims they made public defenders mandatory for vulnerable groups in the seven major crime categories to address the burden of having to hire private attorneys. Does this serve as a real alternative?

[Lim Chan-jong] I want to clarify this point: calling this an alternative is quite problematic. This system has basically existed since 2019. As you well know, the public defender system for victims has been around since 2019.

[Kim Tae-hyun] For context, when a sex crime occurs, victims are automatically assigned a public defender starting from the police investigation stage. So it's something that was already being done.

[Lim Chan-jong] It has been in place since 2019. Representative Seo Young-kyo and others claim they led the effort to create this late last year. What actually happened was that support, previously provided only to victims of child abuse, sex crimes, disability abuse, or human trafficking, was expanded to victims of violent crimes such as murder, robbery, and rape under a legal amendment passed late last year.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Expanding from sex crimes to violent crimes.

[Lim Chan-jong] Yes, and that took effect in June of this year. So that's what it is. Why is it hard to call this an alternative? Because this system existed alongside prosecutors' supplementary investigations since 2019. Simply retaining an existing system when supplementary investigations are eliminated cannot make it a substitute.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Right.

[Lim Chan-jong] Let me tell you the reality. How much do you think a public defender gets paid per case?

[Kim Tae-hyun] Probably around 300,000 KRW?

[Lim Chan-jong] They get 250,000 KRW.

[Kim Tae-hyun] 250,000 KRW?

[Lim Chan-jong] That's 250,000 KRW before tax. And there are two types: full-time public defenders dedicated exclusively to victim representation, and part-time public defenders who take cases on a case-by-case basis while handling other matters. Nationwide, there are only 45 full-time public defenders across all cases.

[Kim Tae-hyun] In the entire country?

[Lim Chan-jong] Yes, 45 across the entire nation.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Really?

[Lim Chan-jong] And there are 576 part-time public defenders, which actually decreased from 601 last year. Simply put, it's not a job lawyers particularly want to take on.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.

[Lim Chan-jong] Based on last year's statistics, full-time public defenders handle an average of 263 cases per lawyer, while part-time public defenders handle an average of 46 cases. As I mentioned, part-time public defenders are paid per case at 250,000 KRW. In the movie "The Unjust" from over a decade ago, a public defender gets angry and says, "Do you know how much I get paid for this? 300,000 KRW, 300,000 KRW!"

[Kim Tae-hyun] I remember that scene.

[Lim Chan-jong] Over a decade has passed, yet it's not 250,000 KRW for a one-hour consultation, but 250,000 KRW for representing the victim across the entire case.

[Kim Tae-hyun] For the entire case.

[Lim Chan-jong] Of course, some lawyers serve with a strong sense of duty despite the low compensation. But calling an existing system from 2019 a solution to eliminating prosecutors' supplementary investigation powers makes no sense. Claiming this policy can replace the legal services prosecutors previously provided to victims is simply unrealistic.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. Let's look at one more thing. The Heavy Crimes Investigation Agency launches in October. Is preparation going well? I read an article recently about how the agency is essentially taking over the prosecution's special investigation functions. While police may excel at violent crime investigations, the prosecution has accumulated know-how in special investigations over many years.

[Lim Chan-jong] That's right.

[Kim Tae-hyun] That know-how needs to transfer smoothly to the agency for it to function properly, but I saw reports suggesting that isn't going well.

[Lim Chan-jong] It's early, so it's hard to say definitely. But look at it this way: I don't think filling positions at the Heavy Crimes Investigation Agency will be a major issue. Some prosecutors actually want to transfer. Most notably, prosecutors planning to leave the prosecution anyway for various reasons. For them,

[Kim Tae-hyun] Even if it means stepping down in rank?

[Lim Chan-jong] Because if a prosecutor decides to resign and go into private practice, spending one or two years gaining experience at the newly established agency before opening a practice can significantly boost their resume as an attorney.

[Kim Tae-hyun] They have it all planned out.

[Lim Chan-jong] So among prosecutors considering resignation—especially at deputy chief or chief prosecutor levels—there is considerable interest.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Right.

[Lim Chan-jong] Also, former prosecutors who became defense attorneys but aren't doing well, or those who have already earned enough money, show interest as well. So it's not as though prosecutors won't go at all.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Yes.

[Lim Chan-jong] Specifically, with October approaching so soon and recruitment not even completed, launching in two months raises serious questions. Once established, prosecutors must transfer all cases within the agency's jurisdiction, and the agency must accept them. Though transitional provisions allow prosecutors to retain cases with looming statutes of limitations, whether the agency can handle the influx as soon as it opens in October remains controversial.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Understood. A major upheaval is ahead for the criminal justice system. How should ordinary citizens prepare?

[Lim Chan-jong] Honestly speaking, I used the term "prosecution privatization." Simply put, it's easiest to think of it like healthcare: Korea used to be a system where you could visit a hospital for a minor cold or a small fracture, but now the criminal justice system is shifting toward something like the US system, where visiting a hospital is so burdensome that people don't go unless severely ill.

[Kim Tae-hyun] In short, it means higher costs.

[Lim Chan-jong] As a result, people need to avoid becoming crime victims as much as possible. Just as Americans place great importance on health insurance and save money for major illnesses, people might need to save funds—whether through insurance or other means—just like saving for college, to prepare for the unfortunate possibility of becoming a crime victim.

[Kim Tae-hyun] So in the past, if you became a victim, the police and prosecutors investigated thoroughly, but now that might be lacking, meaning you'll have to hire a lawyer and handle everything yourself.

[Lim Chan-jong] The past wasn't perfect, but in short, legal costs are highly likely to rise, and proceedings are likely to take longer.

[Kim Tae-hyun] Someone outside handed me a question to ask. Although I am a lawyer myself, they asked me to inquire whether this only benefits lawyers. Let me answer that: lawyers definitely benefit. I can guarantee that. I am a defense attorney and handle many criminal cases. Lawyers unconditionally benefit. There are two reasons why, but I'll explain one later since we're out of time. They definitely benefit. Honestly, for the general public, it doesn't look beneficial. I'll share my experience next time I meet reporter Lim Chan-jong. We'll wrap up here today. That was SBS Legal Affairs Reporter Lim Chan-jong. Thank you.

[Lim Chan-jong] Thank you.

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

[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]