The separation of the prosecution office's right to indict and investigate has been a subject of debate for a long time. Meanwhile, there have been assertions for abolishing the prosecution office's investigative authority. However, if the prosecution office has no investigative authority, it will cause great damage to Korea and the public. In particular, the ability to fight against serious crimes and corruption caused by social leaders will be greatly reduced. To protect the safety and human rights of Korean citizens, the prosecution office's investigative authority must be protected. The prosecution office's investigative authority will be a step toward Korea becoming an incorruptible nation. Thus, the abolition of the prosecution office's rights should not be conducted.

       First, it is difficult to punish corruption among social leaders when the prosecution office's investigative authority is abolished. For example, one hot issue in 2021: the illegal real estate speculation scandal of Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH). Recently, some employees of LH abused internal information to buy farmland in Siheung and Gwangmyeong, Gyeonggi Province. Therefore, an investigation team was autonomously set up consisting of people in LH, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and Ministry of the Interior and Safety. However, there is a risk of evidence being destroyed, if the prosecution does not begin an investigation. In other words, fairness cannot be guaranteed. During the first (1990) and second (2003) new town projects, prosecutors had to get in right at the beginning. Consequently, they arrested 131 and 27 officials respectively who were involved in illegal real estate speculation. It is not possible to guarantee the same outcome as the previous real estate illegal speculation scandals. According to an interview with the former prosecutor general Yoon Seok-youl with The Kukmin Daily on March 3^rd, 2021, "It would have never succeeded if three steps, investigations, indictments, and trials, were separated from political corruption cases such as election intervention National Intelligence Service (NIS) in 2013 and government affairs in 2016." In fact, the prosecution office summoned and raided the NIS officials, so they have secured substantial evidence through a rapid investigation process. According to the '2020 self-evaluation report' published by the Ministry of Justice, two parts were sluggish last year, each crackdown of the social leaders’ crimes and the major corruptions. It was because structural problems could be identified during the investigation process, and that the system needed to be fundamentally reformed to prevent the corruption. In particular, this report said that crackdown of corruption crimes because the prosecution office's investigative authority was reduced. Thus, the prosecution office's investigative authority is important to crackdown on social leaders’ crimes and their corruption. To crackdown on the corruption of social leaders, the prosecution office's investigative authority is necessary.

       Second, it is difficult to handle serious criminal cases. There is the assertion that the prosecution office's investigations can be done by the National Office of Investigation (NOI), Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO), an agency for investigating serious felonies. However, serious crime response can be difficult with these alternative agencies. Conducting indictment and investigation separately, the indictment will not be able to be properly maintained in the trial. Therefore, it is difficult to identify and effectively detect some crimes due to this separation. It will also not be easy to respond consistently and efficiently to the lawyer's arguments in court. Especially, if the prosecution cannot command or be involved from the beginning of the case, it can be difficult to secure evidence and review the complicated principles of law. This is because serious arrest cases have a short legal arrest period, so a rapid and efficient process is essential. Also, there is a risk that the judicial process will proceed much more convolutedly. The damage will go to the public. It is efficient to link the investigations and indictment to cope with complex and intellectual crimes. This is also common globally. According to the academic journal 'Contemporary Review of Criminal Law', 77% of OECD member countries guarantee the prosecutor's right to investigate.[1] It is to correct the insufficient detection of crimes caused by the lack of professionalism and organic response in serious crime investigations. Therefore, many countries closely connect investigations and indictment.

       Third, an agency for investigating serious felonies cannot be the appropriate alternative to the prosecution office's investigative authority abolition. An agency for investigating serious felonies is an institution that would be established in response to the High Court when the prosecution office's right to investigate and indict is separated. However, it has not been long since the prosecution office's investigative authority was adjusted. In the process, it cost more than 10 billion won to revise the Korea Information System of Criminal Justice Services (KICS). The national system may falter and cause huge social cost losses without intensive management to help the prosecution office's investigative authority adjustment progress well. Furthermore, the investigation capability is likely to weaken and operate inefficiently when agencies are subdivided into several branches, such as the various institutions mentioned earlier. There is a risk of causing congestion in the relationship between each investigative institution. Speedy case investigation and judicial processing are important in serious criminal cases in order not to allow time to destroy evidence. We cannot allow these criminals the chance to go free because of an inefficient investigation process. Accordingly, it is still too early to abolish the prosecution office's investigative authority due to the loss of the social costs, confusion among the public and institutions, and inefficient judicial process.

The prosecution office's investigative authority abolition will be a turning point in Korea’s judicial administration. Therefore, it is time for a more careful choice. It can severely threaten the people's livelihood and human rights when the corruption of social leaders and serious crimes are not cracked down on. In addition, institutions divided into several branches are not appropriate as alternatives. Besides, 77% of OECD members guarantee the prosecution office's investigative authority. What choice will Korea make? We should hope it chooses to advance the integrity of the social leadership and the human rights of the people.

CAH has searched for the pros and cons of this issue. The former argued that democratic principles, including the principle of separation of power, should be protected and the public should be guaranteed their right to a fair trial. Also, taking away the investigative powers from the prosecution office can increase the efficiency of criminal trials. On the other hand, the latter argued that the corruption of social leaders and serious crimes should be detected effectively. It also said an agency for investigating serious felonies cannot be the appropriate alternative to the prosecution office's investigative authority abolition. Moreover, the abolition of the prosecution office's investigative authority is an issue that clearly divides the public's opinions. No matter what the outcome is, it is expected to have a great impact on Korean politics and society in the future.