On March 20 and 21, 2026, the National Assembly passed amendments to the Indictment Agency Act and the Act on the Organization and Operation of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency. The amendments abolish the existing Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and formally separate investigation and indictment functions.
With the elimination of the prosecution’s direct investigative authority—maintained since 1949—and the institutional division of investigative and charging powers between separate agencies, Korea’s criminal justice system will undergo a fundamental structural shift, effective October 2, 2026.
This reform represents more than an organizational restructuring. It is expected to materially affect enforcement dynamics and require corresponding adjustments to corporate criminal defense strategies.
Key Features of the Amendments and Institutional Framework
Public Prosecution Office (under the Ministry of Justice) – Prosecution and Trial Functions
Statutory Limitation of Functions: The functions of prosecutors are expressly limited by statute to: (i) decisions on whether to initiate and maintain prosecutions, (ii) review of warrant applications, (iii) consultation with and support for judicial police officers, and (iv) direction of sentence enforcement. This approach is intended to prevent any future expansion of investigative authority through subordinate legislation.
Abolition of Investigative Authority: Provisions in earlier government proposals granting authority to direct and supervise special judicial police officers, as well as to direct the execution of warrants, have been fully removed.
Organizational and Status Changes: The traditional hierarchical command structure has been reframed as “direction and supervision in accordance with law,” strengthening the right of prosecutors to challenge improper instructions. Grounds for disciplinary action have been expanded to include dismissal, thereby partially reducing tenure protections.
Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety) – Investigation of Major Crimes
Jurisdiction over Six Categories of Serious Crimes: The Agency has exclusive authority to investigate six categories: (i) corruption, (ii) economic crimes (including fraud, embezzlement, and capital markets violations), (iii) defense industry-related offenses, (iv) narcotics, (v) national security crimes (including insurrection and foreign aggression), and (vi) cybercrime. The recently introduced offense of “distortion of law” is also included within its jurisdiction.
Independent Investigative Authority: The Agency is empowered to request the transfer of cases under investigation by other agencies where jurisdiction overlaps, and such agencies are required to comply absent justifiable grounds.
Case Review and Oversight Mechanisms: An Investigation Review Committee will be established within the Agency to assess the propriety of pre-indictment inquiries and ongoing investigations, enhancing procedural oversight.
Key Practical Considerations
Transitional Arrangements for Pending Cases: As a general rule, cases under investigation by the prosecution at the time the amendments take effect will be transferred to the competent investigative authorities. However, in exceptional circumstances—such as where the statute of limitations is imminent—the Public Prosecution Office may conclude such cases within a 90-day period.
Risk of Procedural Delays: The institutional separation of investigation and indictment functions may give rise to coordination gaps between agencies. This creates a potential risk of delays in case handling, particularly in complex or time-sensitive matters.
Appeals and Review Procedures: The existing framework for appeals and re-appeals will largely be maintained. Regional Public Prosecution Agencies will assume the functions previously performed by the High Prosecutors’ Offices.
Implications and Recommended Actions
Adopt a Phased Defense Strategy: With investigation functions (Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and police) clearly separated from prosecutorial decision-making (Public Prosecution Office), companies should develop differentiated response strategies for each stage. In particular, early-stage advocacy will be critical to ensure that key evidence and legal arguments are effectively communicated to prosecutors at the charging stage.
Establish a Coordinated Response Framework: Companies may face parallel requests for information from multiple investigative bodies, including the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency, police, and special judicial police. A centralized internal response function should be established to ensure consistency, accuracy, and privilege protection across all communications.
Ensure Procedural Compliance in Search and Seizure: As prosecutors will no longer direct the execution of warrants, investigative authorities may exercise broader discretion in conducting searches and seizures. Companies should closely monitor procedural compliance, including adherence to the scope of warrants and the proper exercise of participation rights during on-site investigations.
Leverage Review and Oversight Mechanisms: Newly established review bodies, including the Investigation Review Committee within the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency and prosecutorial review committees, should be actively utilized. These mechanisms provide opportunities to challenge the propriety of investigations and to present arguments regarding prosecutorial decisions.
