The debate surrounding the abolition of supplementary investigation powers for prosecutors continues, with renewed attention on an 80-year-old illiterate woman's theft case that was resolved through such investigations. Notably, concerns have emerged from women-centered progressive online communities, which argue that without these powers, vulnerable victims may face greater risks.
Recently, a case study produced by the Ministry of Justice has circulated in online communities. The study details how a case initially closed by the police due to lack of evidence was reopened by prosecutors through supplementary investigations, leading to the arrest and indictment of the suspect.
According to the case presented by the Ministry of Justice, a 40-year-old housekeeper, referred to as A, is accused of stealing approximately 130 million won (about $110,000) from an 80-year-old illiterate woman by using her bank account and cash card. The victim reported the disappearance of her money to the police, but they concluded the case, stating that the evidence was insufficient.
Subsequently, prosecutors initiated supplementary investigations, focusing on three key questions: whether the illiterate victim could independently use an ATM for repeated withdrawals and transfers, whether the number of withdrawals was abnormally high, and the final flow of the missing funds.
Prosecutors traced the accounts of A and her family, confirming the flow of the victim's money. They also visited the bank with the victim to verify her ability to use the ATM. During separate interrogations of the victim and A, inconsistencies in A's statements regarding the timing of the withdrawals were identified.
Ultimately, prosecutors arrested and indicted A on charges of theft and computer fraud.
Following the publication of this case, progressive women-centered communities expressed significant concerns about the abolition of supplementary investigation powers.
One user commented, "If such incidents occur, we might hear that 'the transaction records are in the victim's name, so we can no longer investigate,' or 'the victim was negligent, so it's their responsibility,' leading to the case being closed. Isn't the supplementary investigation essentially the last resort for justice?"
Another user noted, "The ones who will suffer the most from the abolition of supplementary investigation powers are ordinary citizens and women," referencing the Busan kicking incident. They explained that while the police initially focused on serious injury charges, supplementary investigations by prosecutors later led to charges of attempted murder. "Without supplementary investigations, the case could have ended with a much lighter sentence," they argued.
They added, "If the police close a case, there may be no mechanism to review it, and regardless of political stance, we need to maintain checks and balances."
Other comments included sentiments such as, "Supplementary investigation powers are a final safety net," "Abolishing the prosecution does not guarantee justice," and "Power must be checked by other powers; the judicial system should operate on checks and balances, not emotions."
Similar reactions emerged from conservative male-dominated communities.
Users commented, "A structure of mutual checks is necessary," "It’s too risky to abolish first and fix problems later," and "We should prioritize the public's welfare over political logic."
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.