Source: https://b-ok.org/book/873315/25d9e8
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:33:07+00:00

Document:
Main Journal of Korean Law, Vol. 6. No. 2.
without notice. Subscriptions are automatically renewed unless notification to the contrary is received.
referees. Articles of less than 10,000 words are preferred. We regret that manuscripts cannot be returned.
University, Shillim-dong San 56-1, Kwanak-ku, Seoul 151-742, Korea.
3. Under any circumstances, the identities of the referees will not be revealed.
Seoul National University and may not be published elsewhere without written permission.
affiliations of the authors are blinded.
weeks after the manuscript submission.
should be given for noncompliance with any recommendation of the referees.
The Role of the Public Prosecutor in Korea: Is He Half-Judge?
to the trial courts, and the courts’ decisions were widely based on those reports, as a practical matter.
be also a good thing for the prosecutor himself to stop working as the judge.
LL.M. in 2002 and a J.S.D. in 2005 from the Indiana University School of Law at Bloomington, U.S.A.
be neutral and that a prosecutor would be nearly as neutral as a judge.
1) Bruce A. Green, Prosecutorial Neutraility, 204 WIS. L. REV. 837, 839-40 (2004).
prepared by a public prosecutor according to the stricter hearsay rule.
3) Kuk Cho, The Unfinished “Criminal Procedure Revolution” of Post-Democratization South Korea, 30 DENV.
J. INT’L. & POL’Y 377, 386 (2002).
guarantee a new set of measures to enhance the neutrality of the Korean prosecutors.
should be based on the understanding of how the office presently works in Korea.
last revised June 1, 2007 as Law No. 8496).
6) See generally JOHN H. LANGBEIN, PROSECUTING CRIME IN THE RENAISSANCE, at Part I (1974).
7) For the definition of the magistrates in France, see e.g., GASTON STEFANI, PROCEDURE PENALE 37 (17d ed. 2001).
prior to the final comment on the on-going judiciary reform in Korea.
supra note 5, at arts. 196-98.
police officers and agents within the area of jurisdiction of his court,” C. PR. PEN. art. 41.
court without a formal indictment,” Kuk Cho, supra note 3, at 381.
pertaining thereto promptly, to a public prosecutor,” CPC, supra note 5, at art. 238.
generally CPC, supra note 5, at arts. 246-7.
petty offence is open to all those who have personally suffered damage directly caused by the offence,” C. PR. PEN.
prosecutor is in the very center of criminal procedure.
available for the criminal victims or harmed parties was the constitutional challenge.
justice system, it is also true in Korea.
defendant is given the right to a jury trial. See generally LPCJ at arts. 8, 13.
supra note 5, at art. 260.
17) Kuk Cho, supra note 3, at 381.
18) JAESANG LEE, supra note 8, at 81.
LAWS OF ENGLAND 373-374 (1768)).
20) JOHN H. LANGBEIN, supra note 6, at 21.
21) See supra note 6.
22) Jaewon Kim, supra note 4, at 55.
III. Who is the Korean Prosecutor?
the Korean prosecutor will help develop a clearer idea of who he is.
generally JAESANG LEE, supra note 8, at 42-44.
that sense, Korea has a far more integrated model than France.
prosecutor is rather an adherent to the French procureur de la République.
note 5, at art. 198-2.
Do It, How Can We Find Out, and Why Should We Care?, 78 CAL. L. REV. 539, 557-58 (1990).
30) See supra note 10.
handle the cases before trial.
have the right to accuse, cannot take charge of any criminal case for himself.
32) JAESANG LEE, supra note 8, at 87.
33) Richard S. Frase, supra note 27, at 666.
34) GASTON STEFANI, supra note 7, at 37.
35) Richard S. Frase, supra note 27, at 666-67.
38) C. PR. PEN. art. 40.
39) C. PR. PEN. art. 41.
40) C. PR. PEN. art. 12.
DROIT PENAL GENERAL ET PROCEDURE PENALE 156 (13d ed. 1999).
43) CPC, supra note 5, at art. 221-2.
44) CPC, supra note 5, at art. 184.
procedure is not in the hands of prosecutors but in that of the examining magistrate.
results of inspection of evidence by courts or judges may be used as evidence.
suspects and the prospective witnesses like the French examining magistrate did.
45) GASTON STEFANI, supra note 7, at 172.
46) CPC, supra note 5, at art. 311.
to himself,” CPC, supra note 5, at art. 242.
Having Insulted the Prosecutorial Office, OHMYNEWS (Seoul), Mar. 12, 2003.
automatically qualified as evidence. See CPC, supra note 5, at art. 311.
50) CPC, supra note 5, at art. 312(1).
51) C. PR. PEN. art. 430.
52) C. PR. PEN. art. 431.
by the police and prosecutors.
examining magistrates or investigating judges. Nor is the prosecutor a police officer.
examination. This is in fact the point which ignites the judiciary reform in Korea.
1. Is the Prosecutor Half-Judge?
formal/truthful making. See generally JAESANG LEE, supra note 8, at 551.
54) See Decision of Sep. 23, 1994, SCK 94 Do 1853.
the formal and actual genuineness could be established.
prepared and made “in specifically trustworthy circumstances” as the article says.
officer at the scene, one has to have the right to deny it in court, and that is important.
55) See, e.g., Decision of Jun. 26, 1984, SCK 84 Do 748.
56) Decision of Dec. 16, 2004, SCK 2002 Do 537.
58) Cast Away Investigating Records, HANKOOK ILBO (Seoul), Sep. 20, 2006.
59) http://www.scourt.go.kr/scourt_en/jdc_info/jdc_reform/index.html (last visited Sep. 15, 2007).
60) DONGWOON SHIN, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE [HYEONGSA SOSONGBEOP] 804, n.3 (3d ed. 2005).
61) CPC, supra note 5, at art. 312(2).
62) DONGWOON SHIN, supra note 60, at 804, n.3.
POLICY [HYEONGSAJEONGCHAIK] 432 (7d ed. 2003).
note 5, at art. 312(1).
65) CPC, supra note 5, at art. 296-2.
66) CPC, supra note 5, at art. 312(4).
H. LANGBEIN, supra note 6, at 29.
means that a transition occurs from the “prosecutorial justice”69) to another paradigm.
that of a subordinate to the examining magistrate, i.e. district judge.
desirable. Car there was also not any means to stop the prosecutor’s misuse of power.
in this paradigm shift. Visibily, the prosecutors are well prepared for the change.
players of the whole criminal procedure.
69) Kuk Cho, supra note 3, at 386.
70) JOHN H. LANGBEIN, supra note 6, at 33.
Interrogation Record to see how the discussion the Record has evolved over the years.
George Washington University Law School and LL.M in 2002 and J.S.D. in 2006 from Cornell University.
He was a Visiting Scholar at Cornell Law School. He teaches Criminal Procedure and Criminal Law.
Does It Matter Who Wrote It?
decide when the matters will reach the bench.
to prove prosecutions, judges were not exactly impartial umpires.
3) See generally SANG HYUN SONG, INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEM OF KOREA (1983).
Dissertation 137 (January 2006). [hereinafter PARK].
to have a guilty verdict.
7) PARK, supra note 5 at 139.
Interrogation of Suspect and Presence of Counsel, SUNGKYUNKWAN LAW REVIEW, Volume 18-3, at 644-645 (2006).
against interest by the accused can be found admissible as long as it fits specific exceptions to hearsay.
history did not respond to leave provisions on Suspect Interrogation Record intact.
Interrogation Record to see how the discussion regarding the Record has evolved.
Suspect Interrogation Record over the years.
talking about some issues left to be desired for the future resolution.
12) FED. R. EVID 801(b) provides that a “declarant” is a person who makes a statement.
KOREAN CRIMINAL CASE STUDY SOCIETY, PARKYOUNGSA (2001).
during public trial by the defendant.
[This Article Wholly Amended by Act No. 705, Sep. 1, 1961].
15) I try to answer to these questions in the later section of this Article.
16) Article 312 of the KCPA, supra note at 14.
shall investigate crimes as judicial police officers under instructions of a public prosecutor.
2. The direction and supervision of judicial police officials with respect to the investigation of crimes.
(Summer, 2002) [hereinafter CHO 1].
shall not abuse the powers bestowed upon him <Newly Inserted by Act No. 5263, Jan 13, 1997>.
19) See CHO 1, supra note at 17.
signature of the accused was on the Record.
just to make another Suspect Interrogation Record by her.
2000 Do 2617 (Korean Supreme Court).
Suspect Interrogation Record, which had been heavily criticized, began to soften up.
Court decision and the law demanded changes in the KCPA.
resistance from the Prosecutors’ office and finally was rejected.
21) Decision of Dec. 16, 2004, 2002 Do 537 (Korean Supreme Court).
http://www.pcjr.go.kr/about008.asp (last visited Sep. 15, 2007).
think a remnant of inquisitorial court system.
actually defend the client. At the moment, the role of defense lawyer is minimal.
approval of the law enforcement personnel such as a police officer or a prosecutor.
direction in the near future.
3) Is Suspect Interrogation Record Truly Necessary?
pursuant to new Section 2 of Article 312 of the KCPA.
evidence such as the Record should not have too much weight in proving cases.
0000021131&section_id=102&menu_id=102 (last visited Sep. 27, 2007).
26) For the information on jury trial in Korea and the recent mock trial, available at http://service.joins.
more reason that the Record should be gone out of the window in the near future.
attention in the near future.
com/news_asp/mt_article.asp?aid=2007091019173118876 (last visited on Sep. 28, 2007).
videotape is that tape should be shown only to the person who was filmed: it cannot be used to show anyone else.
investigation before prosecution is made.
director of police investigation and the prosecutor at the same time.
been allowing the police the power of criminal investigation.
State University of Texas, College of Criminal Justice, U.S.A. (2005-2006).
by the prosecutors’ office for further investigation before prosecution is made.
Neutralization, Seminar Proceedings of Korean Society of Constitution (2002).
For Investigative Power —, JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW, No. 12 (1999).
police officers must obey the orders from prosecutors.
principles allowing prosecutors much bigger power as inquisitors in Korea.
5) Criminal Procedure Law, §312.
pointed out as one of the prime human rights violators.
abolished on the 10th March 1995.
8) Joong-Ang Daily (2002. 11. 06).
9) Se-Gye Daily, “Prosecutor Wonchi Kim Ordered To Torture” (2003. 03. 15).
Organization Revealed” (1990. 12. 02).
12) Yeonhap News, “Prosecutors’ Spear Could Not Get Through Samsung’s Shield” (2005. 12. 14).
are tempted to use any measure to extract confession out of the mouth of a suspect.
2. To Direct and supervise police regarding criminal investigation.
3. To require the court to justly apply law.
4. To Direct and supervise the execution of court decisions.
14) Criminal Procedure Law of Korea, §247.
official’s abuse of power, according to Criminal Procedure Law of Korea, §260.
16) Criminal Law of Korea, §69.
6. Other powers given by other laws or regulations.
THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF CRIMINOLOGY JOURNAL, Vol. 15, No.1, June (2003).
(II), SEOUL LAW REVIEW, Vol. 42, No. 1 · No. 2 (Seoul National University, 2001).
charge of criminal investigation’ became one of the hottest issues among lawmakers.
fascio.’ Hence, the power of criminal investigation is better given to prosecutors.
19) Changwon Pyo, supra note 17.
22) President Jeonghee Park was assassinated by the Chief of Intelligence Agency in 26 October 1979.
23) T.S. Kim, et. al, COMPARATIVE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION SYSTEM, 76 (Bak-Young-Sa, 2004).
conditions for seeking Justice and protecting human rights in criminal procedure.
investigation and the prosecutor at the same time.
establish balance in the criminal investigation procedure.
patent litigation, the practice in Korea illustrates several problems and faces a few challenges.
doing its job very well in general, the relevant industry is not satisfied with its non-obviousness test.
non-obviousness test is essential to lower patent disputes in the future.
issues, the Patent Court are not allowed to deal with remedies such as damages or injunctions.
U.S.A. (2003); a Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law Center, U.S.A. (2007).
1) Article 225 of the Patent Act.
2) Article 133 of the Patent Act.

References: art. 41
 art. 238
 art. 260
 art. 198
 art. 40
 art. 41
 art. 12
 art. 221
 art. 184
 art. 311
 art. 242
 art. 311
 art. 312
 art. 430
 art. 431
 art. 312
 art. 312
 art. 296
 art. 312
 §312
 §247
 §260
 §69