In a move that has sent shockwaves through South Korea’s legal and political communities, Justice Minister Jang Kwan-bu announced sweeping reforms to the nation’s prosecution investigation system, declaring that the prosecution investigation is not a criminal investigation but rather a political one. The statement, delivered on September 10, 2025, during a plenary session of the National Assembly Judiciary Committee, has reignited a fierce debate about the role and constitutional status of the prosecution office—and the future of criminal justice in the country.
Minister Jang’s remarks followed a series of high-level government meetings, culminating in a joint decision by the Justice Ministry and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety to abolish the prosecution investigation and public investigation systems altogether. According to News1 and other local outlets, the government’s proposed reorganization, which includes establishing new institutions such as the Public Prosecution Service and the Serious Crime Investigation Agency, marks the most significant overhaul of South Korea’s prosecutorial framework in decades.
At the heart of the controversy is the question of whether the prosecution office, or prosecution investigation as it’s commonly called, is a constitutionally mandated body. Opposition lawmakers, including Na Kyung-won of the People Power Party, challenged the government’s plan, arguing that because the Prosecutor General is specified in the Constitution, the prosecution office itself is a constitutional organ. Na pressed the issue during the September 10 committee session, stating, “Since the Prosecutor General is specified in the Constitution, the prosecution office can be seen as a constitutional institution in a broad sense. Abolishing the prosecution office through a government reorganization act is tantamount to amending the Constitution by law. Isn’t that unconstitutional?”
Minister Jang countered, “There are various opinions on this matter, but I do not believe the prosecution office is a constitutional institution.” He went on to clarify, “The prosecution investigation is a fact-finding process rather than a criminal procedure. It is a simple administrative inquiry, not a criminal investigation.” According to the Daejeon Ilbo, Jang further described the system as outdated, noting, “The prosecution investigation is an outdated system from 1948 that has become dysfunctional over 70 years.”
The Justice Minister’s position reflects a broader push by the current administration to modernize South Korea’s legal institutions. The government’s plan, finalized after high-level consultations involving the presidential office, the cabinet, and the Democratic Party, is set to be codified in a government reorganization bill. If the National Assembly passes the bill on September 25, 2025, it will be promulgated and take effect one year later—giving lawmakers and the public a relatively short window to digest and prepare for the sweeping changes.
The proposed reforms have not come without criticism or concern. Lawmakers from across the aisle have raised questions about the lack of concrete mechanisms for appeals and objections in the new system. For instance, there is no detailed framework yet for how citizens or defendants can challenge prosecutorial decisions under the new arrangement. When pressed on this point by Democratic Party lawmaker Kim Yong-min, Jang responded, “The specific details will need to be legislated by the National Assembly in the future.” He added, “For parts related to the Serious Crime Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Service, I believe the National Assembly should enact the necessary laws in due course.”
Observers note that abolishing the prosecution investigation and public investigation systems is not merely a bureaucratic reshuffle—it fundamentally alters the balance of power between investigative and prosecutorial authorities. For decades, the prosecution’s ability to conduct investigations and file charges has been a cornerstone of South Korea’s justice system. Critics of the current system have long argued that it grants prosecutors disproportionate power, blurring the lines between investigation and indictment, and sometimes leading to political abuses.
Minister Jang’s assertion that the prosecution investigation is “not a criminal investigation but a political investigation” has especially resonated—and rankled—among both supporters and detractors. According to dongA.com, Jang explained that the prosecution’s role had evolved into a fact-finding process, separate from the criminal procedures that should be handled by other investigative agencies. He emphasized the need for a revised system that clearly delineates investigative and prosecutorial functions, stating, “The prosecution investigation system needs to be revised and the current system is problematic.”
Yet, the road ahead is anything but clear. The Justice Ministry aims to complete the revision of the prosecution investigation system by October 25, 2025, shortly after the National Assembly’s plenary session. However, with the reform bill set to be submitted on September 25 and many of its administrative details still undefined, lawmakers and legal experts are bracing for a period of intense legislative activity—and public debate. Some worry that the lack of detailed provisions for appeals and oversight could leave citizens vulnerable to unchecked prosecutorial or investigative power.
The opposition’s concerns are not without precedent. South Korea’s turbulent political history is marked by periodic clashes between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches over the scope and limits of prosecutorial authority. The current debate echoes earlier reform efforts, many of which stalled or were watered down due to political infighting and public skepticism.
Proponents of the reform, however, argue that the time has come to break with the past. They point to the prosecution investigation system’s origins in the immediate post-liberation era—a time when Korea’s legal institutions were still taking shape after decades of colonial rule. “It’s a system from 1948 that has become dysfunctional over 70 years,” Jang reiterated, underscoring the urgency of modernization.
As the National Assembly prepares to vote on the government reorganization bill, all eyes are on the legislature. If passed, the law will abolish the current prosecution investigation and public investigation systems, replacing them with new agencies designed to separate investigative and prosecutorial powers more clearly. The Justice Ministry and the Ministry of the Interior and Safety are already working on implementation plans, but many details will depend on subsequent legislation and regulatory guidance.
For now, the debate over the constitutional status of the prosecution office—and the broader question of how best to structure South Korea’s criminal justice system—remains unresolved. Minister Jang’s assertion that “the prosecution office is not a constitutional institution” may have set the tone, but the final word will likely come from the National Assembly, and perhaps, in time, from the Constitutional Court itself.
With the reform bill’s fate hanging in the balance, South Korea finds itself at a crossroads—torn between tradition and transformation, and facing tough questions about the future of justice and accountability.
