According to a survey conducted by the Korean Bar Association, a majority of lawyers are opposed to the separation of investigation and prosecution powers in the prosecution reform efforts. The survey revealed that 58% of respondents were against the organizational separation of investigation and prosecution powers, citing concerns such as weakened crime response capabilities (26.4%), potential abuse of power by police or newly established investigative agencies (26.1%), and the intrinsic inseparability of investigation and prosecution functions (24.3%).
On the other hand, those in favor of the separation referenced curbing the concentration of prosecutorial powers and abuse (36.2%), restoring the original functions of the prosecution through the separation of powers (23.4%), and restoring trust in the criminal justice system (18.7%) as key reasons.
Despite differing opinions on the separation of powers, there was significant support (88.1%) for granting supplementary investigation request rights to prosecutors, indicating a consensus on the need for institutional control rather than completely transferring final investigative authority to judicial police officers. This perspective is based on practical considerations for the effectiveness of investigative procedures that lawyers consider from their frontline experiences.
Regarding supplementary investigation rights for prosecutors, there were differing opinions on control measures: 34.6% supported judicial oversight, 37.0% supported unlimited allowance, and 20.9% suggested control by a National Investigation Committee.
There was also prevailing opposition (56.8%) to the establishment of the National Investigation Committee due to concerns over unclear accountability and procedural delays inherent in a committee system.
Regarding the preparation period for implementing prosecution reform legislation, 52.4% of respondents called for a preparation period of more than two years, showing that many legal experts feel a one-year grace period as defined by a recent government bill is insufficient.
The survey also highlighted that the majority of respondents were from the 40s age group (39.7%) and graduates from the bar exam constituted 61.9% of participants. Among them, only 9.1% were former prosecutors, and a significant portion (83.4%) had no public sector experience.