Judiciary backs conditional release, prewarrant hearings but raises concerns over court-run prosecution review panels The Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul is pictured on Thursday. (Yonhap) South Korea's top court called for safeguards against potential unintended consequences of the law revision seeking to abolish prosecutors' supplementary investigation powers.The National Court Administration, which handles the Supreme Court’s administrative affairs, recently submitted its opinion on two proposed revisions to the Criminal Procedure Act, according to Rep. Shin Dong-wook of the main opposition People Power Party on Sunday.The bills would abolish prosecutors’ powers to conduct both direct and supplementary investigations, leaving them only with the authority to request that police conduct additional investigations.The proposals would also remove prosecutors’ authority to direct special judicial police officers and restrict their ability to request warrants."Sufficient supplementary measures should also be prepared to prevent side effects that may arise from institutional changes,” the court administration said.However, it maintained that the allocation of investigative powers was “a matter of legislative policy” that should be ultimately decided by the National Assembly.Court supports judicial overhaul, but raises cautionThe statement marks the judiciary’s first formal opinion on whether prosecutors should retain supplementary investigation powers, a central point of contention in the debate over reshaping Korea’s criminal justice system.The administration was also cautious about a proposal to establish prosecution review committees at district courts to deliberate and decide whether charges should be filed. Having courts organize and operate such committees could affect subsequent proceedings, it said, as judges may find it difficult to reach conclusions that contradict the committees’ decisions.Meanwhile, the court administration expressed support for separate provisions introducing conditional detention and release, as well as preliminary hearings before judges decide whether to issue search and seizure warrants.It also backed a system that would allow judges to question investigators before issuing warrants, moving away from the current paper-based review process.The court administration, however, urged caution over a provision allowing suspects who receive suspended indictments to seek judicial review.A suspended indictment is a decision not to prosecute despite a recognized criminal offense, accounting for factors such as the circumstances of the crime and the suspect’s conduct.Such decisions are currently challenged through constitutional complaints. Transferring the process to ordinary courts could strain limited judicial resources and potentially lengthen the process, the administration said.The administration also raised concerns about allowing people who report alleged crimes, rather than only direct complainants, to challenge decisions not to prosecute.The change could create unnecessary appeals arising from frivolous or grievance-driven reports, leave accused individuals in prolonged legal uncertainty and increase the social cost of disputes, it said.