Ensuring investigative neutrality must be central to prosecutorial reform

Home > Opinion > Editorials

Ensuring investigative neutrality must be central to prosecutorial reform

Published: 02 Jul. 2025, 00:00

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Justice minister nominee Jung Sung-ho answers questions from reporters as he arrives at his confirmation hearing preparation office in Jongno District, central Seoul, on July 1. [YONHAP]

Justice minister nominee Jung Sung-ho outlined the new administration’s basic stance on prosecutorial reform, signaling a more deliberate and consultative approach. Speaking to reporters on his way to work on July 1, Jung said, “Calls for dismantling the prosecution are inappropriate,” but added that “there is a degree of public consensus on separating investigative and prosecutorial functions and redistributing concentrated authority within the prosecution.”

He emphasized the importance of coordination with key stakeholders and pledged to hold thorough discussions in the National Assembly, including with the opposition. His remarks suggest the administration will not pursue reform unilaterally, and that prosecutors themselves will be part of the dialogue. The approach is a welcome departure. Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung, who was appointed under former President Yoon Suk Yeol, tendered his resignation after just nine months in office. In his departure message, Shim warned that “if prosecutorial reform is driven forward with predetermined conclusions and deadlines, it may lead to unintended consequences.”

As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. While President Lee Jae Myung’s campaign platform emphasized the separation of prosecutorial and investigative powers and strengthening institutional expertise, it lacked specificity. Hardline lawmakers in the ruling Democratic Party have already proposed legislation that would split the current prosecution service into two separate bodies: a serious crimes investigation agency and a public prosecution service, both overseen by a new National Investigation Commission under the Prime Minister’s Office. This structure, however, was never included in Lee’s campaign pledges and does not reflect the official stance of the administration.

The most critical principle in any institutional overhaul of investigative bodies, including the prosecution, must be the guarantee of political neutrality. While certain investigations in the past have faced criticism over political bias, calls for dismantling the prosecution entirely are neither productive nor mature. Proposals to create a new oversight body under the Prime Minister’s Office raise concerns that political actors could exert influence over sensitive cases. If such fears prove valid, the very idea of prosecutorial reform would be undermined.

Prosecutor General Shim Woo-jung abruptly offered his resignation on July 1, indirectly expressing strong concerns over the prosecutorial reform being pursued by the Lee Jae Myung administration. The photo shows the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho District, Seoul, on the same day. [YONHAP]

Potential confusion stemming from fragmented investigative authority must also be addressed. During last year’s martial law investigation into the Dec. 3 incident, ambiguity surrounding the jurisdiction of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials caused procedural delays. If prosecutorial power is further divided among multiple bodies — as proposed in recent bills — overlapping authority and inefficiency could increase. For reform to gain public trust, it must aim to reduce unintended consequences and remain free of political motivations.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.