With the Public Prosecution Office set to launch in a month, friction is already emerging over its 'supplementary investigation' relationship with the CIO

[Financial News] As the launch of the Public Prosecution Office draws just one month away, friction is already emerging over how to define the supplementary investigation relationship between the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) and the Public Prosecution Office.
The CIO proposed a separate procedure for 'requests for additional investigation,' saying it would not be appropriate for a prosecutor at the Public Prosecution Office to 'request' supplementary investigations from a CIO prosecutor because that would not fit the relationship between the two agencies. However, questions remain over how additional investigations will be ensured when the Public Prosecution Office, which makes charging decisions, finds that an investigation is incomplete.
According to the legal community on the 1st, the CIO said in response to a revision bill to the CIO Act discussed the previous day at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly's first subcommittee on bill review that prosecutors at the Public Prosecution Office and military prosecutors should not be allowed to request supplementary investigations from CIO prosecutors. Instead, if prosecutors at the Public Prosecution Office determine that additional investigation is needed, they should file a 'request for additional investigation' with the CIO, and a separate procedure should be established so the CIO can cooperate.
A CIO official also stressed at a regular briefing that day, "The point is not that we should not conduct additional investigations at all." However, the official explained, "A prosecutor-to-prosecutor request for supplementary investigation does not fit the system," adding that "the concept of a supplementary investigation request based on a superior-subordinate relationship is not appropriate."
The key issue is how to ensure the effectiveness of requests for additional investigation. Under the method proposed by the CIO, it is unclear whether the CIO must comply when the Public Prosecution Office asks for additional investigation. The CIO did not comment on what measures would be taken if additional investigation is not carried out.
In the legal community, there are concerns that excluding requests for supplementary investigation simply because the relationship is 'prosecutor to prosecutor' may run counter to the purpose of separating investigation and prosecution. Han Sang-hee, honorary professor at Konkuk University Law School, said, "In cases that do not fall within the scope of indictment, CIO prosecutors exercise investigative authority while Public Prosecution Office prosecutors exercise prosecutorial authority, so their functions are different." He added, "The fact that they are prosecutors within the CIO should not be used as a reason to rename a request for supplementary investigation or weaken its binding force."
LEE, Chang On, a professor at Ewha Law School, said, "Under the current system, which separates investigation and prosecution, the CIO is responsible for investigations, while prosecutors at the Public Prosecution Office are responsible for filing indictments." He added, "Receiving a request for supplementary investigation does not make them subordinates." He also noted, however, that there is room to design a procedure different from that used with the police, given the special nature of cases handled by the CIO.
A lawyer who previously served as a senior prosecutor said, "In terms of re-investigating missing points to determine whether to indict, a request for supplementary investigation and a request for additional investigation are not materially very different." He added, "If the only wording is that the CIO 'can cooperate,' that leaves open the possibility of noncompliance, so it must be made clear how responsibility corresponding to investigative authority will be ensured."  
[email protected] Choi Eun-sol Reporter