South Korea to debate reform of prosecutors' supplementary investigations

A South Korean government task force on prosecutorial reform says it will hold a second public discussion on March 16 to decide whether to abolish or maintain the so-called supplementary investigations in the prosecutorial system. The group also noted that it submitted two reform bills—one creating a Major Crime Investigation Office and another establishing a Prosecution Service framework—to the National Assembly on March 3, with further criminal-procedure amendments including supplementary investigations in the works.

The task force tied the new discussion to the broader push to reform how investigations are conducted, saying it will continue through March and April with public panels and debates on the topic of supplementary investigations and the related concept of requests for supplementary investigations. This follows a March 11 public hearing co-hosted with the Korean Bar Association in Seocho, aimed at strengthening the capabilities of investigative agencies.

The upcoming session will be held at the HJ Business Center in Gwanghwamun and is titled “From the public’s perspective: supplementary investigations and requests for supplementary investigations.” Officials say the forum will examine potential risks and drawbacks if the reform moves toward a design that relies solely on requests for supplementary investigations rather than direct investigative actions by prosecutors, and will look for workable alternatives.

Among the speakers, Kang Dong-pil, a lawyer with prior police experience, will speak from a practitioner’s viewpoint about whether removing direct prosecutor-led supplementary investigations could create unwarranted concerns about investigative gaps, illustrating his points with case examples.

Kim Sang-hyun, a professor at Korea University, will address the necessity of supplementary investigations, discuss controls, and propose ways to enhance the effectiveness of requests for supplementary investigations, drawing on international cases for reference.

Additionally, Kim Jae-yoon, Yoon Dong-ho, Jeon Byung-deok, and Jung Jae-gi are listed as participants, who will contribute to the panel discussion. The previous forum had highlighted the need for substantive evidence detailing how often prosecutors currently conduct direct supplementary investigations.

Officials say the debates will also assess whether the proposed alternative—sharpening the effectiveness of supplementary-investigation requests—could realistically substitute for direct supplementary investigations, or whether a hybrid approach is needed.

For U.S. readers, the reforms matter because they touch on how South Korea structures major-crime investigations, the balance of authority between prosecutors and police, and the integrity of the rule of law within a key U.S. ally and trading partner. The outcome could influence how multinational firms operate in Korea, how cross-border investigations are coordinated with U.S. authorities, and broader perceptions of risk and stability in one of Asia’s largest economies.