A major change to South Korea’s justice system
South Korea’s Prosecutor’s Office was abolished on October 2, when a revised Criminal Procedure Act (the law governing how criminal cases are investigated and tried) took effect. Two new agencies began operating: the Public Prosecution Service, responsible for bringing cases to court, and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, tasked with investigating major crimes.
The change separates responsibilities that had long been concentrated within the prosecution service. People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, a civic watchdog group, described the abolition as a consequence of the old institution’s own actions—and said the launch of the new agencies marks the beginning, not the completion, of reform.
“The abolition of the Prosecutor’s Office is the result of its own actions,” the group said, arguing that decades of concentrated power and its misuse caused serious harm to society.
Why the old system faced criticism
For 78 years, according to the civic group, prosecutors held both investigative powers (the authority to gather evidence and question suspects) and prosecutorial powers (the authority to decide whether to bring criminal charges). Critics have argued that placing both roles in one institution can make it difficult to check how investigations are conducted and how charging decisions are made.
The group said prosecutors had, until recently, focused on resisting reform and protecting institutional privileges. It also criticized the organization for failing to acknowledge past abuses of prosecutorial power or offer an apology to the public.
These are the group’s assessments of the institution’s record. The structural change is intended to divide responsibilities, but the practical impact will depend on how the new agencies operate and whether their powers are clearly limited.
What the new division of roles means
In simple terms, the system is meant to distinguish between building a criminal case and taking that case to court. An investigator may gather evidence—much as someone assembles documents and witness accounts to explain what happened—while prosecutors assess the case and present it before a judge.
- The Serious Crimes Investigation Agency is to investigate major crimes.
- The Public Prosecution Service is to focus on prosecution and court proceedings rather than retaining a broad investigative role.
- Other bodies, including the National Police Agency’s National Investigation Headquarters and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials, are also part of the wider investigative landscape.
The group’s message to prosecutors
The civic group urged prosecutors moving into the Public Prosecution Service to give up their attachment to investigative powers and personnel. It said they should concentrate on their role as legal professionals: deciding whether charges are justified and presenting cases in court.
That distinction matters in everyday terms. If one institution both investigates a complaint and decides whether to prosecute it, the public may have fewer ways to assess whether each decision was fair. Separating the tasks can create more checks, but only if each agency is accountable and its responsibilities do not overlap in confusing ways.
The group said rebuilding public trust will require prosecutors to focus on charging decisions and courtroom work, rather than trying to preserve the old investigative structure.
Rules and capacity will shape the transition
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy said the government and governing party must keep working on the reform after the new agencies open. It called for provisions in lower-level regulations (detailed rules that explain how a law is applied) that preserve prosecutors’ direct investigative powers or authority to direct investigations to be removed.
The group also urged the government to strengthen the investigative abilities of both the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and the National Investigation Headquarters. The transition could leave people worried about whether serious cases will still be investigated effectively, particularly if responsibilities are unclear or agencies lack experienced staff and resources.
- Clarify who investigates each type of case. Clear boundaries can reduce duplication and disputes between agencies.
- Build investigative expertise. Training, staffing, and resources help ensure that complex cases can still be pursued effectively.
- Make decisions accountable. Oversight and transparent procedures can help the public understand how agencies use their powers.
Avoiding a new concentration of power
The group warned that the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency must not become an expanded version of the prosecution service’s former major-crimes investigation unit—or a “second Prosecutor’s Office.” Its concern is that replacing an old institution will not achieve meaningful change if a new agency accumulates similarly broad powers without effective checks.
That warning highlights a central challenge for the new system: distributing work among several bodies without weakening investigations or simply recreating the old power structure under different names. For example, when a major case involves several agencies, the rules must make clear who leads the investigation, who reviews the evidence, and how disputes are resolved.
What to watch next
The opening of the two agencies is an institutional milestone, but the reform’s success will be judged over time. Key questions include whether prosecutors’ remaining investigative authority is removed, whether investigators have the capacity to handle complex cases, and whether the public can see how responsibility is divided.
The civic group’s position is clear: abolition alone is not enough. The new system will need sustained political effort, workable rules, capable investigators, and safeguards against the concentration or misuse of power if it is to earn public confidence.
