Notices
[Attorney's Column] Corporate Criminal Law & Special Judicial Police Investigation System and Corporate Response (Part 2) – How Has the Special Judicial Police Investigation System Changed Since October 2026?
LEGAL INSIGHTSCorporate Criminal · Special Judicial Police and Corporate Response ②
How Has Korea's Special Judicial Police System Changed Since October 2026?
Abolition of Prosecutorial Direction, Mandatory Referral, and the Applicable Rules
With the overhaul of Korea's criminal justice system on October 2, 2026, the relationship between the Special Judicial Police (the "SJP") and prosecutors changed fundamentally. Previously, prosecutors directed SJP investigations in detail and the SJP was obliged to follow. The relationship is now one of mutual cooperation, guidance and advice. Unlike the general police, however, the SJP has no power to close a case without referral, so every case it investigates must be referred to a prosecutor. The SJP is also subject to its own procedures, such as mandatory notification of serious crimes and a three-month investigation deadline. This article examines the changes to the SJP investigation system and the rules companies should review.
From "Direction and Obedience" to "Cooperation, Guidance and Advice"
Until October 1, 2026, prosecutors could give specific instructions on the direction and methods of SJP investigations, including compulsory measures, and the SJP was in principle required to comply. According to the seminar materials, prosecutors issued 46,726 investigative directions in 2025 alone, showing how heavily SJP investigations had relied on prosecutorial judgment.
Since October 2, the relationship has been one of mutual respect and cooperation (Criminal Procedure Act, Article 245-10(2) and (3)). The SJP may request guidance and advice in writing, and prosecutors may also provide it on their own initiative. Guidance and advice are, in principle, given in writing or through the Korea Information System of Criminal-Justice Services (KICS), leaving a record. The SJP must "respect and reflect" the prosecutor's views and, if it does not follow them, must state its reasons in a written opinion. The head of the Public Prosecution Office retains the power to request supplementary investigation, corrective measures and disciplinary action.
Three Procedures Unique to SJP Investigations
The seminar highlighted three SJP-specific procedures that companies should particularly note.
First, every case is referred to a prosecutor. When the SJP investigates a crime, it must refer the case to a prosecutor without delay. The provisions on non-referral decisions and requests for reinvestigation that apply to the general police (Criminal Procedure Act, Articles 245-5 through 245-8) do not apply to the SJP (Article 245-10(5) and (6)). An SJP investigation therefore never ends with a finding of "no suspicion" at the SJP level; the final decision always rests with the public prosecutor. A company under investigation should accordingly prepare not only for the SJP stage but also for advocacy before the prosecutor after referral.
Second, serious crimes are reported as soon as an investigation begins. Among violations of customs laws, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the Railroad Safety Act, immigration laws, patent, unfair competition and design laws, and the Labor Standards Act, serious crimes likely to attract public attention must be reported to the Chief of the District Public Prosecution Office immediately upon commencement of the investigation (Mutual Cooperation Regulation, Article 15(1)(10)). This means the Public Prosecution Office may be watching major technology leakage or unfair trading cases involving companies from the outset.
Third, complaints must be investigated within three months. The SJP must complete its investigation within three months from the date a complaint or accusation is received and, if it cannot, must request guidance and advice from a prosecutor (Mutual Cooperation Regulation, Article 29). A complainant company can use this deadline as a benchmark for monitoring progress.
Overlap and Relationship with Other Investigative Agencies
The SJP's fields of duty may overlap with matters investigated by the police or the Serious Crimes Investigation Agency. Under the amended law, where investigations overlap and jurisdiction needs to be coordinated, a request may be filed with the Investigative Jurisdiction Coordination Council under Article 197-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Mutual Cooperation Regulation, Article 7).
The person entitled to file is determined in order: the head of the agency if that person is an SJP officer; otherwise the head of the department if that person is an SJP officer; and otherwise the most senior SJP officer. Where conflicts or disputes over authority arise, the SJP may also ask a prosecutor for an opinion (Article 8(2)). The Council, however, is scheduled to take effect on February 5, 2027, and the enforcement decree governing its composition and operation has not yet been finalized.
The relationship with the police is governed by the Rules on Criminal Investigation, a Korean National Police Agency directive. When a police officer first becomes aware of a crime within the SJP's scope of duties and investigates it directly, the officer must act under the direction of the head of the police station and cooperate closely with the relevant SJP (Article 3). Cases transferred to the SJP must be transferred promptly (Article 4), and where investigations overlap, the police consult with the SJP under the direction of the head of the investigation department (Article 6).
Agency-Specific Rules Must Be Checked Alongside General Rules
SJP investigations are governed by both general rules and agency-specific rules.
The general rules are as follows:
- Statutes: Criminal Procedure Act; Judicial Police Duties Act
- Presidential Decrees: Regulation on Mutual Cooperation between Prosecutors and Special Judicial Police Officers; regulation on the processing of personal information
- Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice: Rules on Mutual Cooperation between Prosecutors and Special Judicial Police Officers
- Established Rule of the Ministry of Justice: Guidelines on the Designation Procedures for Special Judicial Police Officers
- Korean National Police Agency Directive: Rules on Criminal Investigation
In addition, each agency has its own operating rules, such as the Labor Inspectors' Investigation Rules (Ministry of Employment and Labor directive), the SJP operating rules of the Ministry of Intellectual Property, the National Fire Agency, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (each an agency directive), and the Financial Supervisory Service's SJP Operating Rules (an FSS bylaw).
The seminar pointed out two problems with these agency-specific rules. First, some of them still apply mutatis mutandis the Rules on the Duties of Special Judicial Police Officers, which were repealed on January 1, 2021 (Ministry of Justice Ordinance No. 995). Second, the environmental, food and drug, and fire safety rules still contain references to the now-abolished "direction of prosecutors." Because some agency rules are inconsistent with higher-level law, a company under SJP investigation should review the relevant agency's rules directly and check whether they conform to the governing statutes.
Conclusion
With the abolition of prosecutorial direction, the SJP now investigates more independently. Its structure nonetheless remains distinct from the general police in that every case must be referred to a prosecutor. Companies can respond at the right moment only if they understand the SJP's own procedures, including notification of serious crimes, the three-month investigation deadline and the Investigative Jurisdiction Coordination Council. Because some agency-specific rules diverge from higher-level law, the applicable rules should be confirmed case by case.
Related Articles
① How Far Can Korea's Special Judicial Police Investigate?
③ How Should Companies Respond to Special Judicial Police Investigations?
This article was prepared by ONE LAW PARTNERS based on laws in force as of November 2026 and Attorney Insun Ko's seminar presentation, "The Special Judicial Police Investigation System and Corporate Response Strategies" (November 9, 2026). It is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. English names of Korean statutes and agencies are unofficial translations.
The One You Need, The One You Trust
Built on expertise, trust and innovation, we have always sought better answers for our clients. At the end of every journey and at the heart of everything we value, there is always the client. We strive to be the one law firm our clients need and trust.
