공수처법의 문제점과 개정 방안

The Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) was established the aspirations of the people. It originated from a petition by the civic group, ‘People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy’, and the model bill was completed by the ‘Committee for Judicial and Prosecution Reform’, consisting of 17 civilian members. Unfortunately, the current CIO Act reflects the ‘Ministry of Justice's Proposal’ rather than the Committee’s model bill. It is shameful that the CIO, which was created to check the prosecution, is now operating under the so-called the ‘Ministry of Justice’s Proposal’, which was distorted and scaled down by the very prosecutors who were the target of reform. The primary aim of the amendment proposed in this paper is to restore the spirit of the Committee’s model bill, ensuring the CIO’s purpose of efficiently and strictly punishing corruption and crimes committed by high-ranking officials while serving as a check on the prosecution. First, high-ranking public officials excluded from the jurisdiction of the CIO, such as those belonging to the ‘Senior Executive Service (SES)’, must be included within the scope of the law. Second, the range of crimes under the CIO’s jurisdiction and the related offenses that were unjustly narrowed must be restored. Third, the concept of "crimes committed by officials of investigative agencies” should be introduced so that the CIO can investigate all crimes committed by prosecutors or senior police officers. Fourth, the current law, which grants the right to prosecute only for certain cases within the jurisdiction of CIO, weakens the legal status of CIO prosecutors and hinders their function as a check on the prosecution. Therefore, prosecutorial authority should be granted to the CIO for all cases within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the disqualifying factors for CIO prosecutors and investigators should be strengthened, and political involvement by CIO employees should be prohibited. To protect wrongfully accused suspects and defendants, the laws on criminal compensation and defamation should also apply to CIO. Lastly, errors in the terminology between "crimes by high-ranking officials" and "crimes by high-ranking officials, etc.” need to be corrected, the omission of the Military Court Act’s application must be addressed, and a separate disciplinary law for CIO prosecutors should be enacted.