A Heated Debate Over Supplementary Investigation Authority
South Korea's debate over abolishing the
prosecution's authority to demand supplementary investigations has raised real
concerns about the quality and reliability of police investigations. Drawing on
cases the author has directly handled, this post argues that victims — not only
suspects — need legal representation to navigate an overburdened investigative
system, where systematically organized evidence can be the difference between a
case referred for prosecution and one closed for lack of grounds.
Recently, alongside discussions about
abolishing the Prosecutors' Office altogether, the question of whether to
eliminate the prosecution's authority to demand supplementary investigations
from the police has emerged as a heated issue. In one online community,
concerns were raised that if this authority were abolished, the police would,
in effect, hold final decision-making power over investigations — and how a
case is handled could come to depend on an individual's relationship with the
local police.
What the Statistics Reveal
The numbers bear out that considerable delays
and gaps already exist within the current investigative system. According to a
Yonhap News report, in the first half of this year alone prosecutors returned
roughly 65,000 cases to the police with demands for supplementary
investigation, while more than 100,000 cases went unresolved by the police
during the same period. The number of supplementary-investigation requests has
risen more than 27% over the four years since the system took effect in 2021,
and unresolved fraud cases — which require particularly demanding legal
analysis — have increased more than tenfold compared to 2018.
Watching this debate unfold, I found myself
thinking back to cases I have recently handled directly.
Lessons from Cases I Have Directly Handled
In the cases where I represented victims in
filing criminal complaints, every single case resulted in the suspect being
referred for prosecution with a recommendation for indictment — even though the
opposing party, the suspect, had also retained counsel. By contrast, when
victims file complaints without a lawyer, particularly in cases involving
repeated offenses where even giving a full statement of each incident can be
overwhelming, I have observed that outcomes can differ dramatically, including
cases in which the allegations were ultimately found unsubstantiated.
Investigators, too, have only so many cases and so much time; when evidence is
submitted piecemeal and unorganized, it becomes genuinely difficult for them to
review it carefully. In my experience, cases in which a victim submits evidence
in a clear, systematic form are considerably more likely to be referred for
prosecution, while those that are not are more likely to be closed for lack of
sufficient grounds.
Why Victims, in Particular, Need Legal Counsel
For this reason, I often hear the question:
"I'm the victim — why would I need to hire a lawyer?" My view is
exactly the opposite: it is precisely victims who need legal representation.
The number of investigators is limited, and their capacity and energy are not
infinite. If evidence is not organized in a way that helps an investigator
readily grasp the case, the result may not only be a decision not to refer the
case for prosecution, but also the risk that the victim will be counter-accused
of false accusation by the very suspect they reported.
Time Is No Guarantee of a Fair Outcome
In practice, it typically takes anywhere from
three to four months — and in some cases nearly a year — before a criminal
complaint reaches a decision on whether to refer it for prosecution. I believe
the cases I have handled were able to reach a conclusion relatively quickly
precisely because the evidence was submitted in a well-organized form. Most
cases, however, take close to a year, and among the matters brought to me after
a client's own complaint had stalled, I have seen cases where more than a year
passed after filing without any decision at all. The trouble is that a long
processing time is no guarantee that the allegations will ultimately be
substantiated. In one case I took on at the objection stage, of the dozens of
criminal allegations the complainant had originally raised, all but a single
one ultimately ended in a finding that the charges were not substantiated.
These outcomes reinforce my view that, in
order to protect themselves, victims need to retain a lawyer who will be
properly compensated and who will handle the case conscientiously. At its core,
I believe the debate over abolishing supplementary investigation authority is
really about how to guarantee the quality and reliability of police
investigations. Separately from that debate, however, I want to emphasize that
under current investigative practice, the most realistic way for victims to
protect themselves is to obtain the help of a professional who can organize the
evidence systematically and, in doing so, ease the burden on investigative
authorities.
