A criminal justice-related activity refers to the prevention of crimes defined by the government and handling of criminals. Therefore, it could be hardly left to a private sector. Even though it is handed over to private firms, its scope of execution would be limited. In criminal justice, the organizational goal of criminal justice agencies focuses on fair tasks regarding the maintenance of state laws and order. Hence, their organization and personnel concentrate on the handling of cases as fast as they can. Regardless of confinement, criminal justice procedures can cause physical and mental pain. Therefore, the handling of cases in a fair and manner is also important.
Korean criminal justice authorities organize the most efficient teams to handle investigation, trials and execution in a fast and fair way and have the systems designed to protect suspects’, defendants’ and prisoners’ human rights. Thanks to these efforts, the organizations have been restructured to emphasize human rights. In addition, the recruitment and appointment of government employees working for criminal justice agencies are strictly controlled by laws.
Despite such efforts, people’s trust on criminal justice authorities is still fairly low. In other words, at the moment, Korean criminal justice agencies’ primary goal is to regain people’s trust. For this, it is needed to eliminate a gap in perspective between criminal justice agency employees and general public and see things from people’s standpoint.
The purpose of this study is to examine the organizational changes of criminal justice agencies and their staffing and operating systems and set a desirable direction for them. Criminal justice authorities have committed to achieve their fundamental and specific goals according to contemporary circumstances. However, their organizational changes haven’t been flexible because they are installed and operated by laws, and their ultimate goal is not to make profits. In addition, their personnel is also managed and operated by laws, they are hard to change.
In operating all agencies, organization and personnel are most critical elements. A criminal justice agency is an organization designed to realize social justice. In criminal justice authorities, fair treating of criminals and protection of their human rights have been the primary goal. Therefore, they aim to treat all people and handle cases in an equal and fair manner during law enforcement. Therefore, they differ from other organizations whose primary goal is to improve efficiency.
With population growth and restructuring of administrative organizations, Korean criminal justice agencies have expanded. However, their organization and staffing system have not changed much. In fact, there have been diverse attempts to operate criminal justice agencies more efficiently, and the current system would be the outcome of such efforts. In terms of staffing, employees have been recruited through open recruitment or special recruitment if necessary. During the process, the most important part is stay fair and transparent. In Korean criminal justice agencies’ staffing, objective criteria are set, and recruitment is strictly managed accordingly for fairness.
Under this situation, this study investigated the organizational changes of the police, prosecutor’s office, correctional organizations and protection agencies. From a chronological standpoint, the organizational changes and development of criminal justice agencies since the national liberation were analyzed. In addition to simple organizational changes, this study considered the causes of such changes and social, political and economic factors. To find out organizational changes in detail, there are too many data to cover. In addition, this kind of posture can distract the primary purpose. Therefore, the examination is done in minimum level. The changes from the past have already been covered by each agency sufficiently. Therefore, they were mentioned just when needed in this study.

Foreign systems have their circumstances so that they cannot be directly applied to South Korea. However, they could be good references. Therefore, this study investigated the organization and staffing management of four countries (the U.K., the U.S., Germany and Japan) which are closely related with the Korean criminal justice system. In terms of the operation of criminal justice, these foreign countries are that different from South Korea in that it is strictly regulated and operated by laws. For example, the U.S. has the tradition of a state and federal government-centered parallel criminal justice system. Therefore, relational structure between the federal and state criminal justice systems has been a critical issue according to jurisdiction along with the functional relationship of each criminal justice system. Unlike South Korea, in addition, the overall organization and operation of criminal justice systems were decided by election quite often in such advanced countries. In addition, the traditional principle of check and balance is reflected on the criminal law system through the restriction on job involvement through clear job classification and mutual respect among the police, prosecutor’s office, court and correctional organizations. In the U.S., investigation by prosecutor’s office has been strengthened. Regarding court organization, the conventional diverse and complicated state government system has been systematized and integrated. The integration of trial courts has consequently reduced the use of non-legal part-timers in court staffing. In addition, the recruitment of specialized and qualified judges is rising. In terms of a judge recruitment system, despite the existence of a traditional election-based method, merit system-based recruitment through the establishment of ‘Judge Appointment Committee’ has become more popular.
Unlike the U.S., the U.K. adopts a parliamentary system and has emphasized the principle of private prosecution based on the long tradition of local autonomy and common law. As a result, even though it is considerably decentralized geographically, it is integrated by the legislature from the functions of the criminal justice system. Such British justice administrative system lasted until the mid-20th century, but new as pects started to appear during system changes since the 1960s. First of all, investigation and prosecution were divided by the centralization of the police organization and emphasis on public prosecution. Since the establishment of the prosecutor’s office in 1986, public prosecution has expanded. In addition, government al intervention has been more emphasized in the criminal justice system. With the establishment of the prosecutor’s office, investigation and prosecution are now handled by the police and prosecutor’s office respectively. The check and balance between the two government agencies is one of the most innovative changes in the British criminal justice system. With the enactment of the Constitutional Reform Actin 2005, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom isolated from the legislative assembly was established. As the court’s in dependence is rein forced, its role and position are more emphasized in relationship with other criminal justice agencies.
Regarding German criminal justice system-related trends, organic collaboration between the federal police and state police is emphasized to properly respond to international terror attacks. Germany has prevented terror threats through the GTAZ (Joint Counter Terrorism Centre) as a cooperation entity between federal and state agencies. The significant change relating to the prosecutor’s office is the birth of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The European Union (EU) agreed to launch the EPPO on June 8, 2017. At present, a total of 20 countries take part in the establishment of the EPPO, and Germany has also agreed. The EPPO is the EU’s independent organization to be established in accordance with Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The EPPO has probe right on fraud which causes economic damage on the EU and other crimes which spoil the financial benefits of the EU. Regarding the crimes which violate the financial benefits of the EU, the criminal prosecutions of the EU and each country are integrated. Japan has a dual policy system: national police, local police. The order and safety of the government and autonomous groups are maintained under the control of the National Public Safety Commission and local public safety commissions. In case of autonomous authorities, it became very close to people’s lives with the improvement of living safety functions. Its operation and administration should also be adjusted according to changes. In this case, a matter which is beyond the autonomous group’s capability is handled by the national police. Therefore, the Japanese police has a dual system, but the two entities are very closely connected to each other. Japan’s prosecutor’s office gets involved in criminal lawsuits as the leader of public interests and is responsible for protecting the fair benefits of the suspect and defendant. The prosecutor’s office holds a powerful probe right by taking over the power of prosecution. It keeps supporting units such as prosecution administrative officer with guaranteed discretionary power and would form a cooperative relationship with the police. Entering the 2000s, the court of justice introduced a jury system comprised of general public. This system can be viewed as a part of the efforts to prevent laws from being isolated from people’s lives and emotions.
In the Republic of Korea, there have been a lot of changes in criminal justice, and such changes are closely related with organization and personnel issues. In fact, a lot of tasks have been discussed: adjustment of the investigation right by the prosecutor’s office and police, introduction of autonomous police system, unification of laws, establishment of high-rank government official crime investigation department, reform of the court administrative bureau and impendence of corrective protection organization. Since these changes always cause organizational restructuring and staffing, a preventive response should be developed in advance.
Regarding the police, the matter relating to the autonomous police system is the most critical issue. For example, even though the utonomous police system was mentioned as one of the government goals for the Moon Jae-in administration. However, there should be some parts which are not decided yet. The autonomous policy unit was launched at Jeju Special Self-governing Province in July 2006. Even though it’s been operated for over a decade, there still are a lot of pros and cons on the autonomous police system. However, there still are a lot of parts to be decided regarding the introduction of the autonomous police system. The introduction of the autonomous police system is matched with the adjustment of the probe right of the prosecutor’s office and police. The structure of investigation is decided depending on the scope and roles of autonomous police, it is very important to envision its specific aspects. This study proposed the efficient introduction of the autonomous police system and an alternative to coordinate probe rights between the prosecutors and police. Furthermore, it investigated the job title and improvement plan of police workforces. In the police workforce, the percentage of general government employees is small. To improve its organizational flexibility, therefore, this study reviewed this issue and suggested a plan to improve the police rank system which is more complicated than other government employee systems.
Regarding the prosecutor’s office, the following issues were discussed: staying neutral, the Ministry of Justice away from the influence of prosecutor’s office, appointment of the director of the prosecutor’s office by direct election, establishment of the Crime Investigation Bureau for High-ranked Officials. To make the prosecutors stay neutral, they could be kept off from the administrative power by ensuring independent appointment rights and extension of the term of office of the Prosecutor General. The appointment of the director of the prosecutor’s office by direct election could be one solution, but some people insist that it is not suitable to the Republic of Korea. Therefore, a discreet approach is required. The prosecutor’s office could also be restructured to concentrate on investigation and prosecution by keeping the Ministry of Justice away from the influence of the prosecutor’s office.
Regarding the establishment of the Crime Investigation Bureau for High-ranked Officials, a lot of bills have already been submitted. In addition, a government bill is already released. In other words, even though the establishment is already conformed, this study investigated diverse methods regarding the efficient operation of the government bureau.
When it comes to the court of justice, the Court Administration Office needs to build the environment in which a judge focuses on trials only through organizational restructuring and decentralization of the chief justice’s authority. In addition, the diversification of chief justice should be ensured to make the supreme court reflect people’s diverse needs and demand. This study reviewed these matters. With the unification of legal profession, the judge recruitment system has changed. It appears to be desirable to recruit a qualified person with extensive experience as a judge. To prevent any side effects, however, a more specific system should be designed.
In correctional organizations and protection agencies, this study examined a necessity of a correctional & prevention agency. To rehabilitate criminals in a modern society, both facility and social treatments should be performed together. For the success of the rehab, there should be a close connection between corrective and protection agencies. This study reviewed a plan for such linkage. Since correction and protection are in the category of the execution of policies, they should not be controlled by a department in the Ministry of Justice. Instead, this study reviewed a way to carry out them in a more efficient manner.
In addition, this study examined people’s view on criminal justice agencies and analyzed what made them have such perception. For this, reliability survey items on criminal justice agencies were reviewed through the analysis of previous studies. Among them, necessary items were re-investigated to analyze any changes.
According to a survey on people’s awareness of criminal justice agencies in terms of comprehensive reliability and integrity, ‘court of justice’ was most positive while ‘prosecutor’s office’ was rather negative. Such results appear to be relevant with current investigation on the prosecutor’s office under the name of ‘Reform of Prosecutor’s Office’. According to analysis of agency reliability by crime experience, the reliability was low among those who experienced crime. When it comes to the prosecutor’s office, in particular, the agency reliability revealed a big difference between crime victims and non-crime victims. The former had to meet the criminal justice agency, and such experience formed their attitude towards criminal justice agencies. According to analysis of agency reliability by the fear of crime, those with a low level of fear revealed the highest reliability. When differences in agency reliability by respondents’ thought of increase or decrease in crime rates were analyzed, there was a difference in specific results by agency. The reliability on criminal justice agencies was low among those who believed that crime rates increased but high among those who insisted that they dropped. According to analysis of agency reliability by the severity of disorder of environments, the reliability was low when the level of disorder was high. In terms of agency reliability by people’s awareness of social corruption, the reliability was low among those who believed that the corruption was severe.

Considering the technical aspects of the criminal justice system, it is viewed as an object, not a subject, to the general public. This aspect has a negative effect on the formation of positive images in criminal justice system. Therefore, it is necessary to accelerate coexistence and collaboration between the criminal justice system and society by allowing the active participation of a private sector in the system. Such participation can also be emphasized in terms of organizational effectiveness in that it reduces a feeling of distance and enables the utilization of expertise from a private sector. In governance structure as well as job implementation, it is needed to promote the privatization of the criminal justice system by expanding the private sector-participating committees and supervisory organizations.