Notices
[Attorney's Column] Corporate Criminal Law & Special Judicial Police Investigation System and Corporate Response (Part 3) – How Should Companies Respond When Investigated by or Filing a Complaint with the Special Judicial Police?
LEGAL INSIGHTSCorporate Criminal · Special Judicial Police and Corporate Response ③
How Should Companies Respond to Special Judicial Police Investigations?
Distinguishing Administrative Inspections, Choosing the Right Agency, and a Four-Step Legality Check
When companies face an "inspection" by a labor office or the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, many respond without knowing whether it is an administrative inspection or a criminal investigation. This is because the Special Judicial Police (the "SJP") is an investigative body housed within administrative agencies, so the same officials may conduct both administrative inspections and criminal investigations. At a recent seminar, Attorney Insun Ko stressed that understanding this dual nature is the starting point for any response. This article first explains the differences among administrative inspections, tax offense investigations and criminal investigations, and then sets out how companies should respond as complainants and as subjects of investigation.
How Do Administrative Inspections, Tax Offense Investigations and Criminal Investigations Differ?
The three procedures differ in purpose, legal basis and legal nature.
| Category | Administrative Inspection | Tax Offense Investigation | Criminal Investigation (SJP) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Collecting information needed for policymaking and administrative duties | Establishing tax offenses; notice of disposition or criminal accusation | Establishing criminal suspicion; securing evidence for prosecution |
| Legal Basis | Framework Act on Administrative Investigations; individual statutes such as the Food Sanitation Act and Labor Standards Act | Procedure for Punishing Tax Offenses Act | Criminal Procedure Act; Judicial Police Duties Act; Mutual Cooperation Regulation |
| Legal Nature | Administrative activity | Essentially an administrative procedure under case law | Criminal procedure |
| Warrant | Generally not required (statutory basis or voluntary cooperation) | Required for search and seizure (post-hoc warrant within 48 hours in urgent cases) | Warrant requirement applies to compulsory measures |
| Admissibility of Records | Determined by the nature of the document and how it was prepared | Criminal Procedure Act, Article 313 (authenticity and circumstances of particular reliability) | Criminal Procedure Act, Article 312 |
| Outcome | Administrative disposition; corrective instruction | Notice of disposition or criminal accusation | All cases referred to a prosecutor |
| Challenge | Administrative appeal or litigation against follow-up dispositions such as corrective orders | No administrative litigation against a notice of disposition; contested at criminal trial after accusation | Quasi-appeal against seizure and similar measures; contested at criminal trial after indictment |
※ Based on Attorney Insun Ko's seminar materials
The most important practical difference lies in the outcome. An administrative inspection ends with an administrative disposition such as a corrective instruction or a penalty surcharge, whereas every SJP criminal investigation is referred to a prosecutor for a charging decision. Documents and statements submitted without preparation, on the assumption that the matter was merely administrative, may become evidence in a criminal case. When an inspection begins, therefore, the company should first ask the official which statute it is based on and what kind of procedure it is. If it is a criminal investigation, the company should check that its procedural rights are respected, including notice of the right to remain silent, the participation of counsel and the presentation of warrants.
Note: Korea Fair Trade Commission Investigations Are Not Criminal Investigations
The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) has no SJP. Its on-site inspections, requests for documents and interviews are administrative investigations, not criminal investigations. After deliberation and resolution, the KFTC issues dispositions such as corrective orders and administrative fines and, where necessary, files a criminal complaint with the prosecution under its exclusive right of complaint.
Corrective orders and administrative fines are administrative dispositions and are challenged through administrative litigation. The Seoul High Court has exclusive jurisdiction, followed by the Supreme Court, in a two-tier system. An objection to the KFTC (within 30 days) is optional, and a lawsuit must be filed within 30 days of receiving notice of the disposition (or the written decision on the objection, if one was filed). Criminal liability is contested separately in the investigation and trial that follow a criminal complaint. In 2022, a proposal to introduce an SJP at the KFTC was reported, but the KFTC and most experts opposed it, and a Japanese-style criminal investigation system for offenses was discussed as an alternative.
When the Company Files a Complaint: Choosing the Investigative Agency
The seminar presented a step-by-step process for choosing an investigative agency when a company files a complaint or accusation.
First, identify the offense and the applicable provisions. Next, check whether the offense falls within the SJP's scope of duties (Judicial Police Duties Act, Article 6, among others). If it does not, file the complaint with the local police station, which has general investigative authority.
If it does, check whether the law assigns the field "exclusively" to the SJP. For example, Article 105 of the Labor Standards Act assigns the investigation of labor law violations to labor inspectors. In such fields, the complaint should be filed with the relevant SJP, such as a regional employment and labor office or its branch.
If the field is not exclusive, the complaint may be filed with either the police or the SJP. In that case, the following factors should be compared:
- Expertise: understanding of the technology and industry, such as patents, trade secrets, food and drugs, or capital markets
- Investigative capacity: dedicated investigators, forensic equipment, and rules on processing time
- Jurisdiction: whether the agency is limited to the area of its office or has nationwide jurisdiction
- Procedural safeguards: complainant protections such as progress notices, objections and investigation review
Companies should bear in mind that while the SJP offers strong subject-matter expertise, many of its officers have limited investigative experience; as noted, 80.5% have less than three years. After filing, the company should monitor whether the three-month investigation deadline from the filing date is being met. If the investigation is delayed or inadequate, the company may consider asking that the guidance and advice of the public prosecutor be used.
When the Company Is Under Investigation: A Four-Step Legality Check
The seminar emphasized that "an investigation without authority can even lead to dismissal of the prosecution." Because the SJP's investigative authority is strictly limited by law, a company under investigation should check legality in four steps:
- Qualification: Confirm that the official was lawfully designated or is an SJP officer by operation of law, and whether the official is a judicial police officer or an assistant.
- Scope of duties: Confirm that the offense and provisions under investigation fall within the statutory scope of duties.
- Territorial jurisdiction: Confirm that the offense occurred within the jurisdictional area of the investigating office.
- Procedure: Determine whether the matter is an administrative inspection or a criminal investigation, and whether the applicable procedures were followed.
With the abolition of prosecutorial direction, procedural defects that prosecutors once screened out may now remain. This gives companies under investigation greater room to scrutinize the process. Challenging procedural defects, however, is only one tool. It should be combined with a factual defense and a strategy that extends to advocacy before the public prosecutor after referral.
Conclusion: The Dual Nature of an Investigative Body Within Government
The seminar summarized three characteristics of the SJP: it conducts criminal investigations while belonging to administrative agencies; it combines the features of an administrative organization and an investigative organization; and its officials are relatively unfamiliar with criminal procedure. Companies should therefore distinguish between criminal and administrative procedures in their response and review each agency's operating rules individually. Companies under investigation should look for procedural defects, while complainant companies should be prepared for delayed or inadequate investigations. An effective response begins with correctly identifying the nature of the SJP's first contact.
Related Articles
① How Far Can Korea's Special Judicial Police Investigate?
② How Has Korea's Special Judicial Police System Changed Since October 2026?
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.
