Gwangju schoolgirl murder exposes risks of unchecked police power

Investigators from the National Police Agency search the offices of the Gwangju Metropolitan Police Agency in Gwangju, Saturday. Yonhap

The murder of a high school student in Gwangju and an alleged cover-up attempt by police have abruptly disrupted a policy push to strip prosecutors of all remaining investigative powers. The killing by Jang Yoon-gi, son of a police officer, has raised the question of whether Korea should press ahead with institutionalizing unchecked police power at the very moment its dangers have been laid bare.

A special investigation team under the National Police Agency probing the alleged misconduct in the investigation of the murder case visited the office of the Gwangju Metropolitan Police’s commissioner and other top command posts to collect evidence, expanding its inquiry to the police leadership.

This came after investigators named the chief of Gwangsan Police Station in the city, the leader of the violent crimes team and his members as criminal suspects. The team leader was arrested last week on charges including leaking official secrets and destroying evidence. Investigators are also probing Jang's father — himself suspected of destroying key evidence — on suspicion of colluding with the local police investigation team.

What might have been sent to court as a homicide with abnormal motives was ultimately reclassified by prosecutors, who, after conducting supplementary investigations, brought a full rape-murder charge instead — a criminal offense punishable by the death penalty or life imprisonment.

The case that occurred in Gwangju has fractured public backing for legislation that would abolish prosecutors’ supplementary investigative powers completely.

The ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) has pursued prosecution reform under the overarching principle of separating investigative and charging powers. The bills it has submitted would abolish all prosecutorial investigative authority — including both direct and supplementary investigation powers — as well as prosecutors' power to direct judicial police officers. In place of those checks, the bills would require judicial police to complete supplementary investigations within one month of receiving a request and would introduce mechanisms to address inadequate investigations, including the right to demand a reinvestigation and to request the replacement of individual investigators.

Acting National Police Agency Commissioner Yoo Jae-seong sits down for a meeting at the agency’s office in Seodaemun District, Seoul, Friday. Yonhap

The reform push has been driven largely by the DPK’s hardline base. They argue that, even under the label of supplementary investigation, prosecutorial power would extend beyond its charging function, thereby blurring the separation between investigation and prosecution powers and risking a return to the old pattern of concentrated authority in the hands of prosecutors.

Gyeonggi Province Gov. Choo Mi-ae, a leading figure in the party’s hardline faction, has doubled down on the push.

“A prosecutor’s supplementary investigation is, in reality, a direct investigation,” she said on social media. “A prosecutor’s request for a supplementary investigation is a de facto indirect investigation carried out through police. No matter how narrowly you define the exceptions, allowing prosecutors any form of direct investigation means you do not have separation between investigation and prosecution powers.”

She argued that, rather than endlessly delaying the dispersion of prosecutorial powers out of excessive worry, lawmakers should focus on designing institutions so that supplementary investigations function properly within existing investigative bodies, such as the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials.

Voices of concern have nonetheless begun to surface both within and outside the party. Rep. Kwak Sang-eon of the DPK, in a sharply worded social media post, questioned why anyone should assume that the police would somehow refrain from abusing a monopoly on investigative power once all external checks are removed.

“I simply cannot understand on what grounds we are supposed to regard a system in which police, rather than prosecutors, hold a monopoly on investigative power as safer than the current one, or as a system that better protects citizens from becoming victims of crime,” he said.

His concerns echo those of many legal experts. In a statement released Friday, the Korean Bar Association called for a reasonable design of the scope of prosecutors’ supplementary investigative powers, saying that the Gwangju student murder case demonstrates why such powers remain necessary as a check on police investigations. Also in a recent poll conducted by the liberal-leaning Lawyers for a Democratic Society showed 67 percent said prosecutors’ supplementary investigative powers should be retained, at least in part.

The same conclusion has also been reached by the Prosecution Reform Advisory Committee under the Prime Minister’s Office.

Korea's proposed approach would also be an international outlier. In most major democracies — including the United States, France, Australia and Germany — prosecutors have at least some ability to ask police for supplementary steps or corrections before trial. There is virtually no example among major states where prosecutors are completely barred from making any form of supplementary investigation request to the police.

Rep. Lee Ju-hee, a DPK floor spokesperson, acknowledged the growing unease.

“We are well aware that there are voices of concern,” she said in a statement on Saturday. “To ensure that citizens do not suffer any disadvantage or harm, we will thoroughly examine proposed bills during the Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s deliberations and ensure that robust additional safeguards are put in place.”