Home > Opinion > Columns

Does abolishing the Prosecution Service really protect crime victims?

Published: 16 Oct. 2025, 00:04

Kim Dae-gwang

The author is an attorney and secretary general of the Legal Ethics Council

The passage of the government reorganization bill included the abolition of the Prosecution Service, an institution that has existed since Korea’s founding in 1948 and which is now set to disappear by October next year. However, debate over prosecution reform is hardly new. During the Moon Jae-in administration, the government pushed for what it called the “rebalancing of investigative powers” between prosecutors and police, stripping prosecutors of their authority to conduct investigations.

The latest reform goes a step further, separating investigation and indictment entirely. The Prosecution Service will be replaced by two new agencies: the Major Crimes Investigation Agency, under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety, and the Prosecution Agency, under the Ministry of Justice.

The National Assembly voted on a government reorganization bill on Sept. 26 that included the abolition of the Prosecution Service and the establishment of the Major Crimes Investigation Agency and the Prosecution Agency. The photo shows the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in Seocho District, Seoul, on that day. [YONHAP]

It is worth recalling why the discussion on prosecution reform began in the first place. The initial aim was to free the prosecution from the influence of power, money, status and connections, and to ensure fairness, transparency and accountability in criminal justice. The ultimate goal was to restore the prosecution to its rightful place as an institution serving the people. But political circles instead portrayed the prosecution as an omnipotent organ monopolizing the powers of investigation, indictment and enforcement. This narrative created the illusion that taking away the prosecution’s investigative authority would somehow solve all problems.

For most ordinary citizens, who have never had reason to visit a police station or meet a prosecutor, it is difficult to grasp what is at stake. Much like how patients only recognize the importance of the medical system when they fall ill, people often realize the importance of the criminal justice system only when they become victims of crime.

The political framing of prosecutors as inherently corrupt institutions has overlooked a crucial fact: Investigative power itself, not the institution wielding it, is what carries weight. Now that the Prosecution Service is being dismantled, this same power will be concentrated in the hands of the police. Under Korea’s traditional criminal justice system, prosecutors have functioned both as advocates for crime victims and as quasi-judicial bodies overseeing police investigations. The belief that prosecutors cannot be trusted but police can has no factual basis. And if the public later loses faith in the police, will lawmakers then call for the police to be abolished as well?

The idea of separating investigation from indictment also rests on a flawed premise. Investigation involves gathering evidence to determine whether a crime has occurred; indictment is the decision to prosecute based on that evidence. In practice and in principle, they cannot be separated. In all advanced legal systems, prosecutors direct and supervise police investigations to ensure justice. The notion that prosecutors should have no investigative authority — or that investigation and indictment can be cleanly divided — is legal fiction.

Although the revised government organization law has been passed, no concrete follow-up measures are in place, raising serious concerns about enforcement gaps. Who will oversee potential abuses of investigative power by police? How will the essential prosecutorial functions that have now been abolished continue seamlessly? What mechanisms will there be to address crimes that threaten public order but which are difficult to detect without prosecutorial oversight? None of these questions have been answered.

The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency in central Seoul. [YONHAP]

The result is a reform more focused on erasing the word “prosecution” from Korea’s laws than on building a better justice system. If the state fails to ensure justice for victims — if corruption festers and the belief that “criminals will be punished” collapses — then the very foundation of the nation’s legitimacy will be shaken. Justice is the cornerstone of state integrity, and criminal justice is its most critical component. One must ask whether these reforms truly strengthen the nation’s ability to prevent and respond to crime, or if they merely weaken the capacity of the state to act on behalf of victims.

Reform, under any name, must not become an excuse for legislative overreach. The new law includes a one-year grace period, during which the government is expected to devise measures to minimize unintended consequences. Yet it remains uncertain whether the voices of those working in the field — the prosecutors, police officers and victims who rely on the justice system — will be adequately heard. One can only hope that the final outcome will fully protect the constitutional rights of all citizens and preserve the integrity of justice in Korea.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.