Legislative Judiciary Committee Intensifies Debate Over Serious Crimes Investigation Agency Staffing

Representative Lee Hak strongly asserted that deleting this clause would align with the bill's content.

Conversely, counterarguments were made that an unlimited expansion of the investigative scope would create an imbalance. Positions clashed between those who argued that the clause should be deleted because the purpose can be achieved without explicitly stating the crimes subject to investigation in the law, and those who argued that limitations are necessary to prevent excessive investigative powers.

This is interpreted as the government showing some acceptance of the issues raised by the Legislative Judiciary Committee.

The Vice Minister indicated that the clause would be reviewed again and could be amended if necessary, leaving open the possibility of changes to the clause during future bill deliberations.

This is interpreted as the government's will to expedite the candidate vetting and hearing process.

While the deadline for requesting personnel hearings has not been clearly set yet, the presentation of a specific target date suggests that the future schedule may accelerate.

Voices demanding the voluntary resignation and withdrawal of the nomination of Kim Ji-yong, candidate for SCIA head, erupted strongly at the National Assembly Legislative Judiciary Committee. Representative Park Eun-jung criticized Kim's past actions within the prosecution, fiercely attacking him as an 'anti-reform figure' who goes against the spirit of prosecutorial reform.

Criticism continued, citing Kim's classification as being aligned with the Yoon Suk-yeol and Han Dong-hoon factions, suggesting his appointment would undermine the will for prosecutorial reform. Concerns were also raised that his appointment could compromise the SCIA's inherent role.

Therefore, arguments were made that for the success of prosecutorial reform, Kim's nomination should be immediately withdrawn and a new candidate sought. These arguments broadened into a debate about the fundamental purpose and direction of the SCIA's establishment.

Representative Yoon Sang-hyun questioned why donation details necessary for candidate vetting were not properly disclosed and asked if the Election Commission had reviewed or coordinated this issue in advance.

The Election Commission emphasized its obligation to submit and disclose data according to relevant laws. However, the controversy over access to information needed during the hearing's vetting process remained unresolved.

This debate led to the issue of finding a balance between ensuring transparency in political funding and the efficiency of candidate vetting.

Representative Kim Seung-won criticized that if prosecutors structure all of the SCIA's personnel, budget, and organization, the prosecutorial investigation culture could be directly replicated.

This points out that the intent of the bill, which seeks to separate and make investigative functions independent from the Prosecutor's Office, could be negated. The possibility of the hierarchical and command-oriented prosecutorial culture being inherited by the SCIA was mentioned.

Criticism continued that the SCIA preparatory committee, candidates, and judicial secretaries are all filled with former prosecutors, which is insufficient to alleviate public anxiety.

The chairperson announced that this decision was made to supplement the contentious issues raised during today's discussion.

This is because additional discussion was deemed necessary for complex bill wording and legal interpretations. The plan is to refine the wording through in-depth review by expert committee members and then proceed with the bill's voting process based on that.

Representative Kim Seung-won cited the case where a father and investigation team leader colluded to destroy evidence at the Gwangsan Police Station in Gwangju, emphasizing the need for a mechanism to prevent investigative paralysis in cases of internal police collusion.

Such cases clearly demonstrate why higher authorities like the Gwangju Police Agency or the National Police Agency should be able to conduct supplementary investigations. Concerns were also raised that limiting the scope of investigation to specific crime types could undermine the intent of the law.

Consequently, the argument that the SCIA should secure investigative independence and fairness by acting as a supplementary investigator for internal police corruption or collusion gained traction.

Legislative technical discussions continued regarding whether to limit jurisdiction to seven major crimes. The Chief Expert Member explained that the contents of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Serious Crimes Investigation Act should be consistent to reduce the scope for interpretation. This aims to prevent the establishment of jurisdiction by prosecutorial command and enhance clarity in legal application.

Concerns were raised that deleting the clause limiting jurisdiction to seven major crimes could excessively expand the investigative scope. Accordingly, it was mentioned that a compromise, combining the SCIA's original jurisdiction over serious crimes with the seven major crimes to limit investigative jurisdiction, could be considered.

An agreement was reached on the direction of amending the bill in a combined form, balancing the positions of both sides, which is expected to be an important criterion for future bill amendments.