By Moon Gwang-lip
Staff Reporter

The conflict between prosecutors and police over proposed changes to the country’s criminal investigation procedure has deepened.

Yesterday, the presidential office of Chong Wa Dae called on both sides to compromise on the investigation rights, expressing regret over the escalating dispute.

``We hope the prosecution and police will refrain from inappropriate actions in the course of the realignment of the investigation authority. We call on the two law enforcement authorities to find a solution to the issue through dialogue and compromise,’’ presidential spokesman Kim Man-soo said.

The previously behind-the-scenes turf war took on a new dimension on Monday when the Ministry of Justice sided with the prosecution by submitting to the National Assembly an eight-page report containing historical ``facts’’ about the police under Japanese colonial rule.

In the report, the ministry pointed to the role the police played under Japanese colonial rule, referring to them as a ``fascist tool used to plunder the Korean public,’’ while also suggesting that any changes to the procedure that freed police from prosecutor supervision would only see the police return to their old ways.

With the report out in the open, the National Police Agency (NPA) was quick to fight back.

NPA commissioner general Huh Joon-young called the prosecution’s effort to discredit his agency ``pathetic,’’ but added that he understands why the prosecution would try to dig up past dirt. ``Because they have not found anything else to blame us for,’’ he said.

Huh went on to fault the prosecution for exposing select historical facts while failing to cooperate with his agency on other historical investigations.

The conflict between the two authorities began smoldering when the Presidential Commission on Judicial Reform started work on revisions to the country’s criminal procedure.

When the commission released a draft proposal in April, the two sides dug in their heels but engaged each other in closed-door discussions.

If accepted and approved by the President and the National Assembly, the proposed changes would grant independent investigative power to police.

Currently, the NPA may initiate an investigation but it must be supervised by the prosecution and only the prosecution can decide whether to charge an accused or not.

The changes would also further erode the prosecution’s power by removing the legitimacy of interrogation statements obtained by prosecutors from suspects prior to trial. Traditionally, those statements have received almost automatic acceptance from judges during trial.

But a source within the prosecution derided the commission process, saying that ``the big problem is that the scholars [on the commission] have no practical experience in the investigative system.’’ Requesting anonymity, the prosecutor pointed out that prosecutors and judges receive the same training, before adding that ``we can certify and differentiate whether there is enough evidence [to indict].’’

In taking aim at the commission, prosecutors have also claimed that the process is being carried out too hastily, without due consideration for consequences of the reform.

An official with the NPA, however, rejected that concern out of hand. ``It’s already too late,’’ he said, also on condition of anonymity. ``These changes should have been made years ago.’’

The police maintain that a system of checks and balances must be instituted to curb the excesses of prosecutorial power, claiming that the best way is to extend independent investigative power. They point out, for instance, that under the current situation only the prosecution can initiate investigations of its own members.

Their goals sidelined by the dispute at least temporarily, civil action groups pushing for reform showed their frustration with both sides yesterday.

``Shame on them for blaming each other’s past records like that in front of the public,’’ said Kang Kyung-keun, a director of the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice.

``Instead of trying to get the upper hand or just trying to make gains at the expense of the other, the two parties should put the public first,’’ he added.