Is President Lee’s Prosecutorial Reform a Necessity or a Mistake? Key Insights Revealed

Translation result

President Lee Jae‑myung dismissed worries about prosecutorial reform as unfounded, warning that excessive posturing and unnecessary measures could give entrenched interests — those that should be dismantled — both a pretext and an opening to regroup and retaliate. He set out these views as debate within the ruling party over follow-up legislation to the proposed prosecutorial reforms continued.

On the 16th, Lee posted on his X (formerly Twitter) account that whether the head of the prosecution agency is called the \”Prosecutor General,\” as the Constitution uses, or the \”Head of the Public Prosecution Office,\” and whether prosecutors should be dismissed en masse and then selectively rehired, are not directly tied to the separation of investigation and prosecution (i.e., removing prosecutors from investigative duties). He emphasized that reforms must yield concrete results.

Lee said the party-government agreement currently under discussion is not a fixed, immutable plan; it can be debated and amended during the legislative process if needed. Any revisions, he argued, should reinforce the core principle of separating investigation from prosecution and excluding prosecutors from investigative roles, not serve as a vehicle for political theater or unrelated objectives. He added that he saw no convincing reason to insist on renaming the Prosecutor General as the Head of the Public Prosecution Office if doing so risks constitutional disputes and hands prosecutors a pretext for counterattack.

The president noted that the Constitution identifies prosecutors as the agents responsible for prosecutorial functions and names the Prosecutor General as the chief official charged with those duties, so calling the institution the \”Prosecution Office\” is commonsensical. He cautioned that changing the name to \”Public Prosecution Office\” and then relabeling the Prosecutor General and prosecutors accordingly would be excessive. Lawmakers, he said, should design a system that remains rational, efficient and resistant to abuse even as power dynamics evolve over time, and that public expectations should be the standard guiding those decisions.

Lee also said that while limiting prosecutors’ ability to abuse investigatory power is important, it is equally crucial to protect victims from police cover-ups and to hold corrupt offenders accountable. He noted that the question of supplementary investigations for cases transferred to prosecutors after police investigations will be the subject of in-depth discussion when lawmakers revise the Criminal Procedure Act, which governs prosecutors’ supervisory role. He urged that any decision on permitting follow-up investigations fully consider the potential for abuse.

Lee shared a JoongAng Ilbo article titled On Lee’s Government Proposal… Kim Eo‑jun: \”Now in Power, You’re Lenient — I Want to Be Convinced\” and disputed portions of its reporting. The article claimed that on the 15th he urged first-term lawmakers to approve a government bill on prosecutorial reform, provoking strong backlash from hardline supporters gathered around YouTuber Kim Eo‑jun.

Lee said the report that he pressed lawmakers to secure passage of a government bill was inaccurate. He clarified that the so-called government bill is effectively a revised party-government agreement and can be changed at any point during deliberation. He also said the media distorted his remark that not all prosecutors are bad—while there are politicized special prosecutors, many prosecutors perform their duties faithfully. He warned that sweeping measures such as mass dismissal and reappointment would humiliate the profession, and that isolating a snippet of his comments had misrepresented his intent.