The Korean people have watched fall of incapable and irresponsible power by meddling in state affairs of secretive adviser. And, the people watched some of judicial officers who helped power to conceal corruption. The falling country can be saved not by someone but by ‘us’, and state owned think tank is also under same situation. Korean Institute of Criminology (KIC), a state owned think tank, can reorganize administration of state affairs to reform power organizations by reformation of criminal justice system and organization.
KIC had opened ‘Judicial Reform Research Division’, base of judicial reform research, on December 19, 2016, and planned ‘A research on discovery and issues of political subjects on judicial reform’ by Judicial Reform Research Division to decide upon 2017 research subject on February 23, 2017. KIC did: 1) Discover pending subjects on judicial reform of the court, Ministry of Justice, Prosecution Services and the police regarding judicial reform to find research subject and to review literature by subject and issue, 2) Research on pending subject can give material for the government’s long-term road map for judicial reform.
This study investigated issues of political subjects in three stages: 1) Discovery of subjects on judicial reform and selection, 2) discussion of subjects and selection according to the research priority, 3) concentrated research on issues of political subjects. Political subjects of action plan were: 1) police reform, 2) neutrality of the prosecution service, 3) prosecution service’s fairness, 4) reform of the court, 5) citizen participation in criminal justice. Research on the issue was done by literature review and legal system analysis, and precedent researchers were invited to open professional’s forum in connection with ‘KIC Research Society of Legal Affairs’ 5 times to include in research contents.
The new government needs the long-term road map for judicial reform, and citizens needed to solve problems of justice reform from the point of view of citizens. During 5 month the study investigated the subjects of judicial reform.

1. Issue of the police reform

In July, 2017, the Advisory Committee of Korea made adjustment of investigation rights in connection with division of rights of the police and human rights friendly police by the year of 2017 to put rights of investigation into practice from the year of 2018 and to be likely to reform prosecution service quickly. Upon request of the times, prosecution service shall be reformed: 1) The police has infringed upon human rights at investigation. 2) The police has kept power orientation as prosecution service did. 3) The police has much job burden to exercise investigation right and to be unsystematic. When the police does not make change basically, it shall strengthen anti-human rights. The people who were social weak were forced to suffer from losses and damage: Reform of the prosecution service was not enough. The police shall reform to keep balance between power organizations and to improve people’s freedom and rights: 1) division of the police’s power, 2) improvement of the police’s work having infringement upon human rights, 3) reduction of rights of investigation, 4) improvement of the police’s structure. The police’s power can be shared by local government with autonomous police system, and can be done by legislation with committee of the police, and can be done with the people by Office of Education with resident’s recall system of police head. Investigation, guarding and other police job having frequent infringement upon human rights need to reform, and minor offenses of the Act on Minor Offense Punishment and the Act on Road Traffic and punishment regulations of violation of administrative obligation shall make de-criminalization to lessen investigation rights of the police. And, the police shall reform its constitution to improve service conditions and to get properness of the job.

2. Acquisition of Neutrality of Prosecution Service

Reformation of prosecution service can be very much difficult and obsolete to be a subject of the times that has not been solved. The prosecution service had also criticized high ranking official’s corruption and prosecution service’s corruption. The prosection service’s half hearted attitude at recent manipulation of government affairs to let prosecution service be fallen into very much difficult situation. The prosecution service said internal reform with spirit of gritting of one’s teeth at movement of prosecution service reform, and actual action is thought to be speculative. On August 31, 2016, Supreme Prosecutor’s Office gave “reinforcement of removal of legal corruption and internal cleanness” to reform prosecution service. The reform was focused on prosecutor’s private corruption not to give solution of reform of prosecution service organization. Outsiders who have no information on prosecutor service's internal situation and organizational culture are thought not to reform prosecution service. However, the ones who know prosecution service’s situation may not reform prosecution service in objective and neutral way. The prosecution service has made agenda of its reform to create risk and not to reform.
The Ministry of Justice being free from prosecution service and direct election of chief prosecutor are said to get independence of personnel administration of prosecution service, and cancellation of rights of commanding of Minister of the Justice and removal and/or alleviation of principle of same body of prosecution service are thought to keep neutrality and independence of exercise of rights of prosecution. The reformation program was not based on prosecution service’s habit to get rid of influence of the President of Korea and/or political power. The Prosecution Service could not protect it from unfair interference so that it shall reform structure and external influence.
Setting up of Independent Investigative Agency is thought to be an important way of prosecution service reform. However, Independent Investigative Agency is unable to solve all of problems: As such, agreement with setting up of Independent Investigative Agency is thought not to be final way of acquisition of neutrality of Prosecution Service. When prosecution service is reformed to have reasonable personnel administration system and to reorganize prosecution service organization and to assure of prosecutor's neutrality, neither Independent Investigative Agency nor special independent prosecutor may not be needed. Prosecution service reform has admitted of opposition to setting up of Independent Investigative Agency. However, time of reform of the Prosecution Service satisfying needs of civil society has been already elapsed. Independent Investigative Agency shall not be set up according to logics and/or legal principles Prosecution service reform cannot be postponed to be final means.

3. Acquisition of Prosecution Service's Fairness

Prosecutor’s investigation and prosecution have been given very high distrust from the people. Prosecutor’s exercise of rights of prosecution should keep fairness considering social trend. The study firstly investigated principles and control system of current prosecution and examined control of prosecution rights in foreign countries and investigated control of prosecution service’s prosecution rights.
Control of prosecutor’s non-prosecution has included judicial ruling system, and control of prosecution service has included appeal to non prosection.
Korea followed quasi prosecution procedure such as prosecutorial power in Japan, and revision of Criminal Procedure Act in 2007 made change to be compulsory indictment in Germany. 2007 revision of Criminal Procedure Act allowed all of plaintiffs to apply to judicial ruling regardless of crimes to expand crimes in target. Korea cancelled prosecution compelling system to let lawyer prosecute judicial ruling case and to enact limitation on inspection and printing of judicial ruling case and to regulate burdening of expenses and to make change of judicial ruling system greatly. In spite of revision of judicial ruling system, expansion of judicial ruling against the plaintiff has been discussed, and criticism against prosecutor’s prosecution has been raised because of effectiveness and fairness of judicial ruling.
In 2010, prosecution service opened and managed the Committee of Prosecution Service and Citizens to reform. In 2010, forty one of local prosecution services opened and managed the Committee of Prosecution Service and Citizens having 629 citizens: The committee system was made not by legal regulations but by prosecution service’s internal guide to have no compulsory force upon the committee’s decision and prosecution service elected members and the committee was opened upon request of the prosecution service to have low effectiveness of control of rights of prosecution service. Moon Jae-in Government gave public promise of legislation of the Committee of Prosecution Service and Citizens to strengthen external control of prosecution service at the election of the President. On September 6, 2016, ‘A draft of the Act on Installation and Operation of the Committee of Prosecution Service and Citizens’ was submitted to National Assembly to prepare for legal base of screening system joined by citizens and to strengthen democratic control of exercise of rights of the prosecution service and to elevate transparency and to get citizens’ reliability and to protect victim.

4. Reform of the Court

The people’s distrust on judicial power was found to be high. The judicial power is thought to be last fortress protecting people’s rights and low reliability on judicial power should be seriously accepted. The people’s trust can be made at independent judicial power’s fair trial. Judicial power’s independence is based on legal control to get fair justice and to protect human rights as well as individual’s freedom and to have independent judicial power and fair attitude enough to get reliability from the people.
In the 1960s and the 1970s, the Administration had infringement upon judicial power to create problems: After democratization, judicial power was thought to be independent to a certain degree. The chief justice of Supreme Court was given power to produce many problems. The Office of Court Adminstration allowed chief justice of Supreme Court to manage judicial adminstration and to do personnel affairs administration, budgeting and accounting and others to assist chief justice. The administration organization can be enlarged to assist the chief justice’s great power. The goal of reform of judicial power is to divide the rights and to assure of justice’s independent trial. The justice shall be independent to judge according to the Constitution and conscience without external pressure. The justice’s independence has problems of the court’s bureaucratization and ranking to produce uniform culture and to infringe upon the justice’s independence.
Purpose of independence of judicial officer is not to give the officer benefits but to prevent abuse of power and protect trial parties and citizens. Judicial officer’s independence can be threatened by power in and out of judiciary and by administrative power in judiciary, and both have close relation. Current problem is not independence from outside but independence of each judicial officer from control in the court. Right of judicial adminstration of chief of Supreme Court should be returned to representative system with many members including judicial officer election member to do judicial administration in democratic and transparent way.
Democratic decision of personnel administration of judicial officers can help judicial officers do trial work independently. Justice of the Supreme Court shall be elected in various ways to reflect various opinions and to collect opinions of the citizens. Ethic supervisor who supervises judicial officer’s ethics shall elevate status to let outside ethics supervisor take duty.
Reform of military law system is needed to admit of special court concerning reform of court. Military court was given criticism from various points of view including infringement upon trial based on separation of three branches of government and infringement upon principle of prohibit of comprehensive mandate. Convening authority shall be kept considering feature of the military court to assure of human rights and to lessen adverse effects. Incompetent officer was appointed to be a judge of military court and to produce problems. When special character of the military needs not to admit, trial object shall be excluded to be given trial same as common people. Judge officer shall be appointed to keep objectiveness of appointing procedure in accordance with military court’s internal guide and to have its own standard.

5. Citizen participation in criminal justice

Expanding citizen participation is desirable to do judicial reform and to elevate fairness and objectiveness of execution of laws and to get democratic justification. In accordance with criminal justice procedure of investigation, prosecution and trial, and relationship among the authorities, citizen participation in Korean criminal justice is classified and analysed in this chapter. Citizen participation in Korean criminal justice has two of characteristics: First, some legal professionals and some renown persons have monopolized opportunity participating in criminal justice. Most of citizen participating in Korean criminal justice are choosing to form a ‘committee’. The committees are advisory organizations without legal force and rights. Second, most of schemes requiring citizen’s participation were introduced after mid-2000s, and many of them are facing to a near halt. Such a fact has shown the limitation and passive role of the current citizen participation in criminal justice.
Citizen participation in Korean criminal justice should aim to check prosecution service’s monopolism and opportunism, in the prosecution process. ‘Citizens committee on prosecution’ is recently said to be a good way of prosecution reform, but it is distinguished from ‘the committee for inquest of prosecution’ in Japan and/or Grand Jury in the United States. The Korean citizens committee on prosecution the Japanese committee for inquest of prosecution is established in the prosecution service, which is different from Grand Jury and/or Not only Grand Jury but also the committee for inquest of prosecution has elected members by random. In contrast, citizens committee on prosecution in Korea prosecution inquest of committee for the Japanese has recruited members such as law professors, lawyers and renowned persons in the society. It is therefore difficult to control the indictment by public prosecutors and represent common citizens.
As shown in review of implementing Grand Jury in the U.S. and/or the committee for inquest of prosecution in Japan, introducing such a committee for checking powers of prosecutions is not so effective in Korean context as well.
A sole citizen participating scheme with no help of other systems is unable to fulfill a role for controlling criminal justice system. Various kinds of citizen participating systems shall be implemented and developed to protect rights and benefits of victim, to allow common citizens to participate in criminal justice and to expand the rights of citizens as ‘parties’ and/or ‘voters’.