Hello, this is Cheongchul Law Firm.

From October 2, 2026, Korea's Prosecutors' Office is abolished and two new bodies open in its place: the Public Prosecution Office (공소청) and the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (중대범죄수사청). The core of the reform is that investigation and indictment are handled by different bodies. If you are preparing a criminal complaint or are already under investigation, the practical question is what this changes for your case.

This article sets out what disappears and what is created, which oversight tools prosecutors keep and what deadlines apply to them, and what complainants and suspects should track at each stage, based on the statutes in force from October 2, 2026.

[Contents]

1. What Changes on October 2, 2026 — Abolition of the Prosecutors' Office and Two New Bodies

2. Prosecutors No Longer Investigate Directly — Article 4 of the Public Prosecution Office Act and the Deletion of Article 196

3. The Police Conclusion Is Still Not Final — Three Requests a Prosecutor Can Make

4. Deadlines for Complainants and Suspects — Objection 3 Months, Supplementary Investigation 1 Month, Reinvestigation 3 Months

5. Why the Early Investigation Stage Matters More, and a Checklist

What Changes on October 2, 2026 — Abolition of the Prosecutors' Office and Two New Bodies

The Public Prosecution Office Act (공소청법) and the Act on the Organization and Operation of the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (중대범죄수사청 조직 및 운영에 관한 법률), both enacted on March 24, 2026, take effect on October 2, 2026 together with the amended Criminal Procedure Act (형사소송법). The Prosecutors' Office is abolished, and a new structure begins in which indictment is handled by the Public Prosecution Office and the investigation of serious crimes by the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency.

• Public Prosecution Office (공소청) — Article 2 of the Public Prosecution Office Act provides that the Public Prosecution Office, metropolitan public prosecution offices (광역공소청) and district public prosecution offices (지방공소청) are established to handle the work of prosecutors. This is the body in charge of filing and maintaining indictments.

• Serious Crimes Investigation Agency (중대범죄수사청) — Under Article 3 of its governing Act, the agency is established under the Minister of the Interior and Safety (행정안전부장관), and district agencies may be set up. It investigates the serious crimes listed in the Act.

Article 2 of that Act lists, among others, insurrection and foreign aggression, fraud and extortion, embezzlement and breach of trust, bribery and other crimes relating to public officials' duties, violations of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes and the Capital Markets Act, crimes involving narcotics, telecommunications-based financial fraud and virtual assets, and leaks of industrial technology or trade secrets as types of serious crime. However, the name of the offense alone does not determine which body investigates a given case. Jurisdiction depends on the statutes and the facts of each case and must be checked case by case.

How cases that were already under investigation are handled in the new system is governed by the transitional provisions of each Act, so pending cases need to be checked individually.

Prosecutors No Longer Investigate Directly — Article 4 of the Public Prosecution Office Act and the Deletion of Article 196

The change with the most direct effect on the parties is that the structure in which a prosecutor investigates directly disappears. There are two statutory grounds.

First, the duties of a prosecutor under Public Prosecution Office Act Article 4 (공소청법 제4조).

• Matters necessary for deciding whether to indict and for maintaining the indictment

• Matters necessary for requesting warrants

• Consultation with and support for judicial police officers regarding criminal investigation

• Requesting the court to apply the law properly

• Directing and supervising the execution of judgments

• Conducting state litigation and administrative litigation, among others

Criminal investigation itself does not appear anywhere in the list. With respect to investigation, the Act refers only to consultation with and support for judicial police officers.

Second, the deletion of Criminal Procedure Act Article 196 (형사소송법 제196조). This provision, which formerly governed investigation by prosecutors, was deleted by the amendment of August 4, 2026.

Previously, even after the police had finished their investigation, a prosecutor sometimes investigated the missing parts directly before making a disposition. From October 2, 2026, any supplementing of the facts after a case is sent to the prosecutor takes place not through the prosecutor's own investigation but through a request to the judicial police officer for supplementary investigation.

The Police Conclusion Is Still Not Final — Three Requests a Prosecutor Can Make

Even with investigation and indictment separated, the end of a police investigation does not mean every case is settled as it stands. The Criminal Procedure Act in force from October 2, 2026 gives prosecutors three means of checking a judicial police officer's investigation, each with its own deadlines and follow-up measures.

Request for supplementary investigation — Criminal Procedure Act Article 197-2 (형사소송법 제197조의2)

• A prosecutor may request supplementary investigation from a judicial police officer where it is necessary to decide whether to indict or to maintain an indictment in a case sent by the police, or to decide whether to file a warrant applied for by a judicial police officer, among other cases.

• The request is made in writing, stating the reasons and content specifically.

• The judicial police officer must carry it out and report the result within 1 month of receiving the request, and the prosecutor may extend the period by up to 1 month.

• If the request is not followed without justifiable grounds, the head of the relevant public prosecution office may demand removal from duty or disciplinary action.

• Where an adequate supplementary investigation cannot be expected, the request may be directed to a designated higher investigative office or another investigative body.

Request for corrective measures — Criminal Procedure Act Article 197-3 (형사소송법 제197조의3)

• Where a violation of law, an infringement of human rights or a manifest abuse of investigative authority is suspected in the course of an investigation by judicial police officers, the prosecutor may demand a certified copy of the case records and request corrective measures.

• If the corrective measures are not carried out without justifiable grounds, the prosecutor may demand that the case be sent to the prosecutor or transferred to another investigative body.

• Before interrogating a suspect, a judicial police officer must inform the suspect that he or she may apply to a prosecutor for relief in such circumstances.

Request for reinvestigation — Criminal Procedure Act Article 245-8 (형사소송법 제245조의8)

• Where a judicial police officer's decision not to send a case is unlawful or unjust, the prosecutor may request reinvestigation, stating the reasons in writing.

• The prosecutor must make the request within 3 months of receiving the relevant documents, except in cases such as the discovery of new evidence.

• The judicial police officer must complete the reinvestigation within 3 months of receiving the request and, if the suspicion is established, send the case to the prosecutor.

• The complainant and other entitled persons are notified that reinvestigation has been requested.

In short, a prosecutor does not examine the facts directly, but the statute provides a route for requiring an investigative body to investigate again where the investigation is considered insufficient, unlawful or unjust.

Deadlines for Complainants and Suspects — Objection 3 Months, Supplementary Investigation 1 Month, Reinvestigation 3 Months

The deadlines that parties should keep in mind under the new system are as follows, by position.

If you are a complainant

• Objection to a non-referral decision within 3 months — Under Criminal Procedure Act Article 245-7 (형사소송법 제245조의7), a complainant who has been notified of a non-referral decision may file an objection with the head of the office to which the judicial police officer belongs. The amendment of August 4, 2026 introduced a filing period: the objection must be filed within 3 months of receiving the notice, and the period may be extended where there are justifiable grounds.

• Once an objection is filed, the judicial police officer must send the case to the prosecutor without delay.

• An objection by a third-party accuser (고발인) is limited to the crimes prescribed by Presidential Decree. Because a complainant and an accuser have different standing, first confirm which one you are.

• If the prosecutor requests reinvestigation, the complainant is notified, and the judicial police officer must complete the reinvestigation within 3 months of receiving the request.

If you are a suspect

• Supplementary investigation: 1 month — If the prosecutor requests supplementary investigation after the case is sent, the judicial police officer must carry it out within 1 month of the request, and the prosecutor may extend the period by up to 1 month. Prepare materials and written opinions on the assumption that further questioning may take place within this period.

• Reinvestigation: 3 months — Even after a non-referral decision, the prosecutor may request reinvestigation within 3 months of receiving the relevant documents (except in cases such as newly discovered evidence), and the case is sent to the prosecutor if the complainant files an objection. It is too early to assume that the procedure is over upon a non-referral notice alone.

• Notice before interrogation — Before interrogating a suspect, a judicial police officer must inform the suspect that relief may be sought from a prosecutor where there is a violation of law, an infringement of human rights or a manifest abuse of investigative authority (Criminal Procedure Act Article 197-3).

Which provisions apply to cases already pending as of October 2, 2026 is governed by the transitional provisions, so where the calculation of a deadline matters, the case should be checked individually.

Why the Early Investigation Stage Matters More, and a Checklist

Because prosecutors no longer fill gaps through their own investigation, the facts and evidence secured at the early police investigation stage may carry more weight. Even when supplementary investigation or reinvestigation is requested, the actual investigation is carried out not by the prosecutor but by a judicial police officer or another investigative body.

If an investigation is under way or you have received a notice of the result, check the following three points.

• Whether any facts were left out during the investigation

• Whether the evidence and statements you submitted were properly reflected

• Whether the law was applied correctly

The statute also provides a channel for conveying your position to the prosecutor. Criminal Procedure Act Article 245-13 (형사소송법 제245조의13) allows a prosecutor, when necessary for deciding whether to indict, whether to request reinvestigation, or for maintaining a prosecution, to confirm the facts by hearing opinions from the suspect, persons concerned, experts or judicial police officers, or by receiving written opinions and related materials. Complainants may apply for a meeting with the prosecutor to state their views (the prosecutor decides whether to accept the application), and when hearing a suspect the prosecutor must ensure access to the assistance of counsel. However, statements and materials obtained in this way cannot be used as evidence at trial (paragraph 3 of the same Article). Since trial evidence must be secured during the investigation and remain in the record, this is another reason the early investigation stage carries more weight.

If the result differs from what you expected, it is necessary to identify specifically which points were not sufficiently examined in the investigation and whether there was any error in the application of the law, and to explain this to the prosecutor. Since the prosecutor's decision is based on the record and the materials submitted, the starting point is to organize the facts and evidence thoroughly and submit them to the investigative body from the outset of the case.

At Cheongchul Law Firm, lawyers with experience at the prosecution service and major law firms handle each case directly from beginning to end. If you are preparing a criminal complaint or need a review of an investigation result, please reach us through our consultation booking page.

This post is provided for general legal information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Conclusions may differ depending on the facts of each case, so please consult a professional.