Criminal defense lawyers and victims using South Korea's revised Criminal Procedure Act face a procedural roadblock that prevents prosecutors from submitting victim-submitted evidence during trials, hankyung.com reported on February 23. Kim Ye-won, head lawyer at the Disability Rights Legal Center, called on the National Assembly to execute a one-point amendment to Article 245-13, Paragraph 3 of the statute to resolve the mounting courtroom confusion.
Revised Criminal Procedure Act Blocks Victim Evidence
The legislative friction stems from Article 245-13, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bars prosecutors from using statements and materials acquired through fact-finding interviews with complainants as trial evidence. Kim stated on Facebook that the statute creates an untenable operational environment for victim attorneys. While prosecutors retain the legal authority to receive documents directly from victims, the current statutory language forbids them from utilizing those same records during court proceedings.
Under previous legal practices, trial prosecutors reviewed evidence handed over by victims during the public trial phase and applied to the court for its formal admission. Under the revised framework, any attempt by a prosecutor to collect and submit victim-provided material directly opens them up to challenges regarding statutory violations.
Debate Over Investigative Authority and Prosecution Scope
Legal counterarguments suggest that a victim voluntarily supplying evidence after a formal indictment falls under trial maintenance activities rather than active investigation. However, Kim dismissed that interpretation as insufficient to resolve the operational crisis. The statute explicitly prohibits the use of data acquired through general fact-finding operations, leaving open the question of whether a victim’s voluntary handover legally constitutes fact-finding under the law.
Even if the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and the National Court Administration establish practical implementation guidelines allowing voluntary submissions, defense attorneys retain the legal grounds to dispute the admissibility of such evidence on a case-by-case basis. This dynamic introduces widespread inconsistency across judicial panels, where individual judges may apply conflicting interpretations of the statute.
Kim Urges Legislative Change to Simplify Evidence Submission
Kim emphasized that differentiating between direct supplementary investigations conducted by prosecutors and evidence voluntarily provided by victims remains essential for maintaining an orderly trial process. Without legislative intervention, practitioners must rely on cumbersome procedural workarounds. These alternatives include routing documents back through police agencies that have already concluded their investigations, requesting formal document submission orders from judges, or submitting materials directly to prosecutors while assuming the risk of evidentiary challenges.
To eliminate the systemic uncertainty, Kim urged lawmakers to amend Paragraph 3 so that prosecutors can legally review and apply for the admission of evidence voluntarily submitted by crime victims.