Controversy of Article 26

[Anchor]

The reason the prosecution was unable to investigate and have had to send President Yoon to trial is that the court did not accept the extension of President Yoon's detention period.

The basis for this is Article 26 of the Corruption Investigation Office Act.

There are criticisms that the ambiguous Corruption Investigation Office Act is causing confusion in the overall investigation.

Yoon Bo-mee reports.

[Report]

The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials mentioned the need for additional investigation when it transferred the case to the prosecution on the 23rd.

[Lee Jae-seung/Deputy Chief of the Corruption Investigation Office/Jan. 23: "We judge that additional investigation (by the prosecution) would be efficient for uncovering the truth of the case...."]

In light of President Yoon Seok-yeol's continued refusal to be investigated, it was deemed better to quickly transfer the case to the prosecution, which has the authority to indict, for supplementary investigation.

However, the court's judgment was different.

Citing Article 26 of the Corruption Investigation Office Act, the court stated that the prosecution does not have the authority for additional investigation and denied the extension of the detention period.

Article 26 of the Corruption Investigation Office Act stipulates that when the Corruption Investigation Office conducts an investigation, it must promptly send documents and evidence to the prosecution, and the prosecution must quickly notify whether to file charges.

However, there are no specific provisions in the Corruption Investigation Office Act regarding the prosecution's additional compulsory investigation.

Therefore, the court viewed that the investigation should be conducted by the Corruption Investigation Office, and the prosecution only needs to decide on the indictment.

Previously, the prosecution cited a precedent where it conducted supplementary investigations on a case sent by the Corruption Investigation Office during the case of former Seoul Education Superintendent Cho Hee-yeon, but the court did not accept this.

[Kim Kyung-soo/KBS Advisory Lawyer: "The case of former Seoul Education Superintendent Cho Hee-yeon was a non-custodial case, while this case is a custodial case, so I think it is difficult to compare the two."]

As a result, there are ongoing criticisms that the Corruption Investigation Office Act does not clearly define the relationship between the prosecution and the Corruption Investigation Office.

Moreover, if the prosecution forcibly conducts supplementary investigations on cases received from the Corruption Investigation Office, it could lead to issues regarding the admissibility of evidence, raising calls for urgent amendments to the Corruption Investigation Office Act.

This is Yoon Bo-mee from KBS News.