(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Hwang Jae-ha = A sitting prosecutor sought the Constitutional Court's judgment in opposition to the revision of the Criminal Procedure Act, which completely abolishes the prosecutor's investigative power.
According to the prosecution on the 27th, prosecutor Oh Se-hyeon (12th bar exam taker) of the Yeongwol branch of the Chuncheon District Prosecutors' Office filed a request for a power dispute adjudication against the National Assembly to the Constitutional Court on the 22nd.
A power dispute adjudication is a lawsuit that determines which organization has the responsibility and rights of each government agency when there is a conflict between tasks and authority between government agencies.
Prosecutor Oh also applied for a provisional injunction to temporarily suspend the abolition of investigative authority until the results of the authority dispute trial are announced.
This authority dispute trial was filed on the basis that it was unconstitutional that the National Assembly, led by the Democratic Party of Korea and the ruling party, passed a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act at the end of July to completely abolish the investigative power of the prosecution.
Prosecutor Oh recently explained the purpose of the authority dispute trial to the prosecution's internal network, Epros, and argued that the prosecutor's right to command the investigation is a constitutional authority.
He cited the Constitutional Court's 1997 constitutional decision as the basis for the unconstitutionality petition filed by former presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo in protest against the court's issuance of additional arrest warrants in 1996.
The trial of former President Jeon and others did not end until the detention period (6 months) at the time had expired, so the trial court of the first trial continued the detention trial by issuing a separate arrest warrant for crimes not listed in the original arrest warrant.
Accordingly, former President Chun Doo-hwan and others argued that the court's issuance of additional arrest warrants violated the Constitution, which states that 'when arresting, detaining, confiscating, or searching, a warrant issued by a judge must be presented at the request of a prosecutor in accordance with legal procedures.'
At the time, the Constitutional Court ruled that the court's decision to issue warrants only upon the application of the prosecutor during the investigation stage was only to suppress the investigative agency, and that such a deterrent was not necessary at the trial stage, so the prosecutor's application was unnecessary.
The Constitutional Court also ruled that the purpose of the Constitution stipulating the requirement of a prosecutor's application for warrant issuance is "to establish the prosecution's authority to command investigations over other investigative agencies and to prevent the harmful effects of human rights abuses that frequently occurred in the past due to warrant applications by investigative agencies other than prosecutors."
In addition, Prosecutor Oh argued that although abuse of prosecutorial power can be prevented through investigations by the High-ranking Public Officials Crime Investigation Office or application of law distortion charges, eliminating the prosecutorial right to investigate exceeds the constitutional limits of the right to form legislation.
The Constitutional Court is currently reviewing the application for a power dispute trial and temporary injunction filed by Prosecutor Oh, and the sentencing date has not yet been set.
