It seems there is no end to corruption scandals involving state prosecutors. The latest case involves a senior prosecutor who allegedly received dubious money from a businessman facing fraud charges.

Kim Hyung-joon, who was suspended Wednesday pending internal investigation, is suspected of receiving 15 million won ($13,500) from the businessman on two occasions and trying to solicit favors from his fellow prosecutors investigating the case. The prosecutor and the suspect went to the same middle and high schools.

The way Kim received the money suggests the possibility of a dirty deal: He got the money through the bank account of a woman who worked at a bar he visited frequently.

But the prosecutor, now under investigation by internal auditors, insisted that he borrowed the money to spend on drinking and pay medical bills for his father. He said he paid it back in about one month.

What the businessman told investigators is totally different. He was quoted as saying he did not get the money back, and that he habitually gave money, free meals and drinks to Kim.

Investigators said the prosecutor met his fellow prosecutors investigating the businessman on suspicions of fraud and embezzlement charges.

This is a typical dirty connection in which suspects and defendants seek the influence of prosecutors to get lighter punishment for their wrongdoings. What is worse is that there is the possibility of a cover-up, as the case was first reported to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office in May, but relevant officials had not taken any action.

The case is the latest in a string of corruption cases buffeting the prosecution. It is also another reminder that the prosecution needs a drastic overhaul and that any such endeavors should not be left to the prosecutors themselves.

The latest case surfaced less than one week after the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office announced self-reform measures in the wake of scandals involving a vice minister-level prosecutor and a prosecutor-turned-attorney.

The measures included strengthening internal oversight and investigation into prosecutors. Specifically, the internal investigation office under the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office will constantly monitor changes in prosecutors’ wealth and an independent unit will be in charge of the internal investigation of senior prosecutors.

As the latest and previous cases show, these would hardly suffice in keeping prosecutors clean and restoring public confidence in the nation’s top law-enforcement authority.

As things stand, outside intervention — by the National Assembly for instance — seems inevitable. The purpose of the reform should be to strengthen safeguards against corruption among prosecutors and more importantly, curb the power and authority of the prosecution.

This is because concentrating investigative power and the authority to indict in the hands of prosecutors is one of the root causes of problems surrounding the prosecution.

There have already been some pertinent proposals, such as the suggestion that the prosecution be relieved of the authority to investigate and maintain only the right to indict.

More radical proposals include having the prosecution share the authority to indict with other law-enforcement agencies.

All these proposals need legislation or amendment of relevant laws, which is why the National Assembly should lead the discussions.