In South Korea, the heated debate on the introduction of prosecution reform bills continues to rage on, leaving the National Assembly paralyzed over their passage and deepening a social divide.

The proposals have been prompted by the prosecution’s long history of failing to dig deep into corruption allegations involving prosecutors, among other misconducts.

The bills create an independent anti-corruption body to investigate corruption allegations involving senior public officials, including prosecutors, and empower police by giving them prosecutors’ investigative power. The bills aim to check on the prosecution.

“Abuse of power by the prosecution is somewhat foreign in Germany, I’d say. I don’t think I’ve been asked about that,” Rudiger Reiff, head of the Central Anti–Corruption Division of the General Attorney’s Office of Berlin, said in an exclusive interview with The Korea Herald on Wednesday.

On a visit here to share his expertise with the Korean legal community on such issues as anti-corruption law enforcement, the senior prosecutor in Berlin said his unfamiliarity with prosecutors’ abuse of power stems from its absence in Germany.

“I haven’t witnessed corruption cases involving prosecutors or judges on my watch in Berlin,” Reiff said, adding his anti-corruption division investigated 134 cases last year in Berlin, and 15 of them went to the court, mostly resulting in convictions. Prosecutors or judges were not brought in as alleged offenders, he said.

A meticulously designed legal framework that dictates what law enforcement agencies should do and not do case by case, combined with a deeply rooted rule-abiding culture, is one reason, Reiff said, adding a law enforcement free from any political influence is another factor in the low corruption rate.

“Judges check on prosecutors to prevent rights violations as well,” the senior prosecutor said.

Reiff, when asked about the role of Korea’s new anti-corruption body, declined to answer directly, citing his position as a prosecutor. The body will be independent of the standing prosecution and will wipe out the prosecution’s three major anti-corruption departments in place.

“Corruption in Germany falls under the exclusive oversight of each state prosecution, whereas the federal prosecution looks into nationwide crimes such as terrorism,” the Berlin prosecutor said, noting the state and federal prosecution are two independent agencies with no overlapping governance or chain of command.

Reiff did not directly address another contentious issue in the reform bills, where supporters and opponents are divided over whether to give the prosecution’s investigative power to the police so they would be able to open and close a case on their own.

“Police are our hands and feet, and we direct them to investigate cases,” Reiff said, adding the German prosecution does not have its own investigators. The South Korean prosecution runs investigation with its own investigators, but supporters of the reform say police should take on those responsibilities.

Reiff shared his thoughts on introducing nonlegal experts in the anti-corruption body. “It’s not bad to invite citizens because they would pitch in their take on corruption cases,” he said. But he expressed concerns about their role in cases than demand professional legal expertise.

Citizens who do not hold a license to practice law or have legal education will make up the body according to the reform, but opponents argue that could put the country’s entire law enforcement in jeopardy because South Korea does not observe a jury trial.

The senior prosecutor repeatedly underlined “rules and procedures” as dictated in the law and highlighted “prosecution’s independence” from outside influence. “Prosecutors and abuse of power,” Reiff said. “Put together like that, the idea is somewhat foreign to me and in Germany as well.”

By Choi Si-young (siyoungchoi@heraldcorp.com)