The resignation of a Daejang-dong investigation team prosecutor, controversies over abandoning appeals, and complex internal currents within the prosecution reveal the current state of prosecution reform.
Prosecutor Kang Baek-shin played a crucial role in both the first investigation team during the Moon Jae-in administration and the second investigation team during the Yoon Seok-yeol administration.
It is known that prosecutors, from those on the front lines, strongly protested, asking, “How could this happen?”
Additionally, some even suggested that resignation letters were rejected, which could be interpreted as a measure to fill vacancies.
He retired with the rank of Deputy Chief Prosecutor after serving for sixteen and a half years.
During his tenure, former prosecutor Song gained diverse experience and fulfilled his role as a prosecutor.
In particular, through practical training as a prosecutor, he realized that prosecutors are not distant figures but play a role directly connected to the livelihoods of ordinary people by handling common crimes.
He explained that to manipulate one piece of evidence, all related evidence must be perfectly manipulated, as he described the process of handling criminal cases.
He emphasized that this is a task requiring the consistency of all evidence, which is practically difficult to implement.
He explained that this is because he personally experienced the investigative responsibility and the difficulty of proving guilt as a prosecutor.
He reiterated that the structure itself makes manipulation practically impossible, arguing that such criticisms do not accurately reflect the reality of the prosecution.
Former Prosecutor Song Myung-jin stated that he raised an objection during training at the Judicial Research and Training Institute when the policy to abandon the Daejang-dong appeal was issued. He believed it was necessary to clarify the circumstances because the appeal was waived in a manner inconsistent with the training content, and no explanation was provided.
Consequently, a statement was posted on the internal bulletin board under the name of the Law Research and Training Institute professors, expressing caution against definitive judgments made without reviewing the case records.
At the time, prosecutors believed that guilt or innocence should be clearly determined in the appellate court, and there was great concern about losing this opportunity.
He believes that since the case went to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the acting chief should bear full responsibility.
In this regard, controversy also arose over whether Park Cheol-woo, the then Anti-Corruption Department head, evaded responsibility. Former prosecutor Song drew a line, stating that the Minister or Vice Minister of Justice has nothing to do with specific investigative directives.
He emphasized that the person in the final decision-making line of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office should take responsibility.
He noted that there were practical difficulties between the superior's instructions and the working prosecutor's efforts to persuade.
He hinted that differences in opinion regarding the locus of approval responsibility could arise during this process, offering a glimpse into the complex internal decision-making.
In other words, even if the investigating authority changes, the legal effects of investigation and prosecution remain consistent. Former prosecutor Song criticized the media and politicians for distorting this principle.
He emphasized that this principle is intended to ensure consistent legal application and investigative continuity within the prosecution organization, and it is not a concept that infringes upon the independence of individual prosecutors.
He added that within the prosecution, even subordinate prosecutors can express disagreement with a superior's order, and opinions are coordinated according to legal procedures.
Former prosecutor Song Myung-jin refuted that the Criminal Justice Information System (KICS) is merely a ledger for operating criminal law procedures, not an investigative control process. He pointed out that the claim that cases cannot be concealed just because KICS exists is far from reality.
He specifically mentioned that preliminary investigation stages are not entered into KICS, creating blind spots, and highlighted the disconnect between former branch chief Park Eun-jung's remarks and practical realities.
He emphasized that the primary purpose of the police is public safety, not investigation.
He pointed out that while police officers familiar with local conditions perform public safety duties well, some then move to investigative departments. If rotation is intensified to prevent collusion, it could lead to a public safety vacuum.
Furthermore, he predicted that even with rotational assignments, existing personal networks are likely to be maintained, making the effect of fundamentally preventing investigative collusion minimal.
Former prosecutor Song Myung-jin explained the low recruitment rate of prosecutors during the push to establish the Serious Crime Investigation Agency. He stated that to encourage applications, support was initially allowed to be withdrawn, fearing that too many people would not apply if support was definitively required.
However, he pointed out that the structure allowing withdrawal after application ultimately increased instability in personnel, leading to the loss of specialized investigators trained with state funds.
He argued that while requesting one or two additional investigations is possible when an investigation is highly complete, problems arise when investigative responsibility shifts to the police, as it currently has.
He expressed concern that police investigations may not be as thorough as before, and an attitude of "just do enough and don't refer if it doesn't work" could become prevalent.
He added that as the prosecution loses its command authority and can only make requests, situations may arise where the police refuse additional investigations, saying, "We tried this, but it didn't work." He pointed out the limitation that cases cannot be solved by records alone in investigations where on-site presence is crucial.
He stated that KICS is an electronic system for recording investigation progress, while the prosecution's case ledger is closer to a register managing the entire process from a case's initiation to its conclusion.
He emphasized that due to these system differences, there is a possibility of missing case information or abnormal processing, making overall case control challenging.
He added that especially with weakened investigative command authority, completely controlling case progress through the system alone has limitations.
He pointed out that the current system, which sends investigative records to the prosecution without transferring the case itself, is inefficient.
He argued that this effectively forces the prosecution to request re-investigations or supplementary investigations to prevent cases from being concealed.
Ultimately, he claimed that this only increases the burden on the prosecution and hinders the efficiency of investigative procedures, criticizing that it has lost the original intent of abolishing the full transfer system.
Answers come from the transcript, with the exact spot cited.
Want the next article from 펜앤마이크TV?
When 펜앤마이크TV publishes, we'll write it up like the one you just read and email it to you.
펜앤마이크TV published 105 in the last 7 days.
