(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Seungyeon Lee = The Serious Crimes Investigation Office (Serious Crimes Investigation Office) claimed that the investigative agency has exclusive authority to accept the leniency system for voluntary reporters of collusion cases.
While a conflict broke out between the Central Investigation Agency and the Public Prosecution Service over the authority to file a leniency, the Central Investigation Agency stated that it was appropriate and legally justified for the investigative agency to have the authority to receive it in terms of the effectiveness of the investigation.
On the 27th, the Central Investigation Agency distributed a statement to the media and stated, "The Central Investigation Agency, an investigative agency, is in charge of receiving leniency and assigning provisional rankings, and the Public Prosecution Service is in charge of deciding whether to indict or seek a reduced sentence. This is consistent with the principle of separation of investigation and prosecution and the effectiveness of the cartel investigation."
The leniency system is a system in which individuals or companies involved in collusion are not indicted or have their sentences reduced if they voluntarily report and cooperate with the investigation and trial.
The purpose is to overcome the limitation that in normal collusion cases, cartels are formed through secret agreements between a small number of business operators, making it difficult to secure evidence directly from the outside.
The conflict between the Public Prosecution Office and the Central Investigation Office arose on the 16th when the Public Prosecution Office revised the ‘Guidelines on the Processing Procedure for Applications for Penalty Reduction in Cartel Cases.’
It was pointed out that with the implementation of the revised Criminal Procedure Act on the 2nd of this month, the investigative power of prosecutors was completely abolished and the Central Investigation Agency was launched, leaving a vacuum in the hands of the operator of the leniency system.
Lenience was applied based on the established rules of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office (currently the Public Prosecution Office) rather than laws, and it was not decided who would operate it and on what basis in the process of separating investigative and prosecution powers.
According to the revised regulations of the Public Prosecution Office, after receiving and reviewing voluntary reports from companies, etc., if the Public Prosecution Office determines that it is necessary to proceed with the procedure, it will send the original materials, such as the application form, to the investigative agency.
Afterwards, it was decided that once the investigative agency would proceed with the investigation and forward the case, the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Office would make the final decision on punishment reduction.
However, as the Heavy Water Administration also established a policy to accept leniency on its own, the two organizations clashed over the authority to accept leniency.
In a statement on this day, the Central Investigation Agency stated that since leniency is an investigative technique that provides evidence and induces cooperation in the investigation, it is in line with the effectiveness of the investigative agency to receive an application for leniency.
He also refuted, point by point, the Public Prosecution Office's position on the right to receive leniency, which was known through the media.
The Central Investigation Agency's claim is based on the Criminal Procedure Act.
According to the revised Criminal Procedure Act, prosecutors have been removed from the list of subjects who receive reports of crimes, including complaints and accusations, including surrenders.
Accordingly, since the legal basis for the application for leniency is 'surrender', only investigative agencies can accept it.
The Public Prosecution Service is no longer an investigative agency following the enforcement of the revised Criminal Procedure Act on the 2nd.
He also refuted the argument that the Heavy Water Investigations Office does not have the right to prosecute and therefore cannot accept the application.
The Central Investigation Office emphasized, “Submission of an application for leniency provides a clue to the investigation,” and “After review, a decision is made on whether to assign a provisional ranking and initiate an investigation. This is all an investigative act and is an area that the Public Prosecution Office cannot do.”
In the case of the United States, where criminal leniency was created, he also refuted some comments that the Antitrust Division of the Ministry of Justice receives applications and ranks them.
The Central Investigation Agency said, “The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is an organization that conducts both the investigation and prosecution of criminal cartels,” and added, “It is difficult to apply the U.S. case in Korea, where investigation and prosecution are separate.”
At the same time, it was also revealed that in Australia and Canada, where investigation and prosecution are separate, the agency with investigative authority is receiving the leniency.
In response to concerns that it will become difficult to predict what kind of disposition an applicant for leniency will receive, the Central Investigation Agency said, "Predictability is not simply the name of the receiving agency, but a matter of consistency in the initial filing time, objective confirmation of the provisional ranking, and final criminal disposition," and added, "We will continue to consult closely with the Public Prosecution Office in the future."
Even when it was pointed out that the case could be non-transmitted considering the requirements for reduced punishment, he said, “We have not reviewed it at all.”
Meanwhile, the Public Prosecution Office claims that it has the authority to file for leniency based on the principle of prosecution convenience under Article 247 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Since the prosecutor is the one who exercises the final prosecution right and maintains the indictment, the purpose is that the prosecutor also has the authority to directly review whether to reduce criminal punishment.
