Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun Criticizes 'Garbage Bill' at Parliamentary Audit

She argued that the deprivation of the right to request supplementary investigations could lead to legal problems and investigative gaps, emphasizing that legislators must take responsibility for problems caused by unreasonable legislation. Democratic Party lawmakers, on the other hand, stressed the necessity of legal amendment and characterized the prosecution's backlash as coercive investigations.

She criticized the attitude of treating a witness like a criminal as coercive investigation, calling it an inappropriate stance for a National Assembly member. Prosecutor Ahn particularly emphasized that she had even undergone disciplinary proceedings during former President Yoon Suk-yeol's tenure as prosecutor general, strongly resisting being branded as a prosecutor biased towards a specific political faction.

Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun clarified that she did not attend the parliamentary audit with any specific intention that day. She stated that she felt frustrated observing the audit situation from the back row since the morning. Prosecutor Ahn explained that she judged the content and discussion level of the audit, which is conducted with taxpayer money, to be inappropriate for representatives of the people, and that she was expressing her frustration as an on-site practitioner. This led to criticism that the discussions in the audit chamber at the time were conducted without sufficient deliberation.

She stated that when they are in the National Assembly, they feel more like politicians than legal professionals. In particular, she pointed out that then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Choo Mi-ae, having been in politics for a long time, gave a stronger impression of being a politician than a legal professional, implying that political positions were reflected more than the principles of a legal professional.

Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun exposed the severe work overload within the current prosecution. She stated that she herself has over 500 unresolved cases, and her entire department has up to 600. She added that some branch offices have accumulated up to 800 unresolved cases. She explained that this is due to an average of 240 new cases being received daily, and the speed of processing and accumulation being almost the same, intensifying the case backlog.

Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun pointed out the serious manpower gap within the prosecution. She stated that experienced mid-career prosecutors are leaving due to special prosecutor assignments or external dispatches, disrupting work continuity. She revealed that her junior prosecutor, immediately below her, is from the 11th class of the bar exam, indicating a gap of over 10 years between them with no prosecutors in between. This phenomenon is creating a structural problem where only new prosecutors remain, raising concerns about a long-term weakening of investigative capabilities.

Criticism has emerged that the fragmentation of investigation procedures following the 'complete deprivation of prosecutorial investigative powers' (Geomsuwanbak) is lowering efficiency and increasing confusion for victims. Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun explained that even if victims file a single complaint, the case is split by charges and processed as two separate cases. This reduces investigative efficiency, makes it difficult for victims to track case progress, and effectively fragments the existing integrated investigative system.

Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun pointed out that the case fragmentation investigation method causes differences in progress speed and creates several problems. She stated that contradictory situations arise where the remaining cases are indicted only after one case's sentence is finalized. Furthermore, she criticized that additional time is required to reconstruct fragmented cases and understand records, leading to overall investigative delays. She strongly criticized this method for making the investigation scene 'a mess'.

She called the bill 'the worst garbage bill I've ever seen in my life,' pointing out that it is structured primarily for the convenience of suspects and defendants rather than victim protection. She emphasized that numerous clauses in the bill simply delete prosecutorial powers, and as an on-site practitioner, she strongly advocated for the bill's abolition or revision.

Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun pointed out that despite the importance of the prosecutor's role in directly determining whether to conduct an autopsy in important cases, deleting the prosecutor's authority in the bill risks relying solely on police judgment. She raised questions about the process by which the existing provisions for maintaining post-mortem examination were left in, expressing concern that this could harm the professionalism and objectivity of investigations.

She stated that digital evidence can be easily destroyed, making a prompt preservation request essential. However, with prosecutors no longer able to directly request preservation, the risk of evidence deletion has significantly increased. She also expressed concern that if a preservation request is made through the security investigation request procedure, the process could be delayed, leading to the expiration of the company's retention period, resulting in actual obstruction of investigation.

Representative Choi Kang-wook argued that it is necessary to inform the media as a way to officially raise problems.

Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun pointed out that this provision makes it difficult for victims to disclose materials they have reviewed or copied to external parties, effectively blocking their right to publicize their grievances through the media.

Concerns were raised about the possibility of police independently disposing of seized items without prosecutorial command under the revised Criminal Procedure Act. Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun pointed out that while current law requires prosecutorial command for the disposal of seized items, the amendment could weaken this authority. She expressed concern that this could make re-evaluation or re-forensics, necessary for practical investigations, difficult, thereby undermining the objectivity and reliability of the investigation process.

She pointed out that 'patchwork' legislation is being enacted without sufficient deliberation and careful review, leading to confusion in the legal system. She even stated that multiple proposals are clashing within the Democratic Party itself, criticizing this as revealing the hastiness and irresponsibility of the legislative process.

Prosecutor Ahn Mi-hyun attached deep meaning to Assemblywoman Seo Young-kyo's remarks made during the parliamentary audit. Regarding Assemblywoman Seo Young-kyo's comment that prosecutors 'treat politicians like criminals,' Prosecutor Ahn interpreted this as politicians' 'victim mentality.' She pointed out that such remarks could lead to criticism that it's 'a thief who pricks his own foot,' raising fundamental questions about how the political sphere views the prosecution.