공수처의 우선적 관할권 행사의 문제점과 개선 방안

Issues have been raised regarding the exercise of primal jurisdiction by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO). The exercise of the right to transfer cases, the arbitrary and repeated requests for case transfers, and the exercise of authority beyond the power given by the CIO Act partially stem from the wording of Article 24, Paragraph 1 of the CIO Act, which seems to entirely leave the exercise of the right to request case transfers to the subjective judgment of the CIO Director. The following are suggestions to improve this situation: First, the CIO should exercise the authority under Article 24 in a manner that aligns with the objective criteria, in accordance with the intent of the reform proposal that introduced the relative primal jurisdiction. Primal jurisdiction was introduced so that the CIO could exercise jurisdiction over cases, rather than the prosecution, in an objective situation where it is reasonable for CIO to exercise jurisdiction. Second, the CIO should exercise its primal jurisdiction in a way that aligns with the purpose of its establishment. The CIO should not avoid responsibility by transferring cases that it should investigate to the prosecution. The CIO should not create new powers, such as the so-called ‘transfer with prosecution rights reserved’. The CIO should also avoid arbitrarily requesting or transferring cases repeatedly, or transferring cases that have been neglected for a long time. Third, it is necessary to consider introducing explicit regulations that limit the arbitrary exercise of the CIO’s right to request and transfer cases. Such restrictive regulations would help the CIO earn public trust by fulfilling its responsibilities and add authority to the CIO’s exercise of primal jurisdiction.