South Korea has dismantled its longtime prosecution service, redistributing its investigative and prosecutorial responsibilities between two newly established agencies, marking a significant shift in the country’s criminal justice system. The restructuring, which took effect recently, reflects a broader effort by President Lee Jae Myung’s administration to curb what it perceives as excessive prosecutorial power and politicization.
For nearly eight decades, South Korea’s prosecutors wielded expansive authority to both investigate crimes and initiate prosecutions, gaining a reputation for rigorous enforcement, particularly in financial crime cases. Under the new framework, the Serious Crime Investigation Agency (SCIA), operating under the Ministry of the Interior, is tasked with conducting major investigations. Meanwhile, the police will handle other criminal inquiries. The Public Prosecution Office, aligned with the Ministry of Justice, retains the exclusive authority to decide whether to file charges and will represent the state in court proceedings.
The reforms arose amid concerns that the previous system allowed prosecutors to exercise unchecked power, sometimes leading to politically motivated investigations. President Lee characterized the overhaul as ending an era in which prosecutors “monopolised both investigation and indictment,” accusing the former system of facilitating “political prosecution” aimed at suppressing rivals.
The changes have attracted mixed reactions. Supporters of reform view the division of responsibilities as a necessary measure to increase transparency and reduce abuse. However, some experts and insiders have expressed apprehension about potential gaps in investigatory expertise, especially regarding complex white-collar crime. Park Ju-geun, head of corporate research group Leaders Index, cautioned that the SCIA and police may require additional time to develop the necessary skills to handle sophisticated financial investigations effectively.
Within the prosecution ranks, there are signs of uncertainty. A serving prosecutor, identified only by the surname Son, noted that while many SCIA officers are former prosecutors, the agency lacks basic operational resources such as computers and stationery. At the same time, SCIA personnel face pressure to demonstrate their effectiveness by targeting high-profile cases.
The police’s expanded investigative role has raised concerns due to recent scandals involving misconduct. In July, a police team leader was arrested amid allegations of evidence tampering in a schoolgirl’s murder case, with suspicion falling on the accused killer’s father, also a police officer, for destroying evidence. Additionally, a police officer was recently implicated in falsifying closure reports for two missing-person cases, both individuals later found deceased. President Lee acknowledged these issues, emphasizing that police reform remains a priority for his administration.
A particularly contentious element of the reforms is the elimination of prosecutors’ ability to conduct “supplementary” investigations. Previously, prosecutors could directly investigate identified gaps in police inquiries before deciding on indictments. Under the new system, prosecutors can only request that police conduct follow-up investigations, potentially slowing prosecutorial responsiveness.
The prestige associated with being a prosecutor in South Korea is deeply ingrained culturally and politically. Son reflected on this dynamic, recalling their parents’ pride in Son’s appointment as a prosecutor, viewed as a symbol of elite status and influence. Despite changes to the institution’s structure, Son expressed skepticism about whether any holder of power could resist leveraging prosecutorial authority once in office.
Overall, South Korea’s prosecution reforms represent a fundamental reconfiguration aimed at distributing power more evenly among law enforcement agencies, a move that will be closely watched for its impact on the country’s legal landscape and political accountability.