Main text
Chapter 1 Investigation Review Application System 3
1.
Activities during the investigation period 3
2.
Application for investigation review 3
Section 1. Application for Police Investigation Review 5
go.
6. System of rejection, avoidance, and evasion
me.
Prohibition on Private Contacts Related to Investigations 7
Section 2 Standards and Procedures for Processing Requests for Investigative Review 7
go.
Investigation Review Request Processing Standards 7
me.
Procedure for processing investigation and review requests 8
(1) Request for investigation review 8
(a) Guarantee of legality and fairness 11
(I) Channel 11 for Redress
(D) Securing an opportunity to reexamine the case 11
(A) Importance of specificity and completeness of application 11
(2) Subject of investigation and deliberation 11
(3) Differences between the appeal of the investigation review and the decision not to prosecute 12
(A) Scope of application 12
(I) Handling of lawsuits and accusations 12
(D) Differences in processing procedures 12
① Objection to the decision not to prosecute 12
② Rule 13 on the Deliberation of Police Investigation Cases
Chapter 1 General Provisions 13
Chapter 2 Application for Investigation Review 13
Chapter 3 Investigative Review 15
Chapter 4 Police Investigation Review Committee 15
Section 1. Police Investigation Review Committee established in the National Investigation Headquarters 15
Section 2 Police Investigation Review Committee established in city/provincial police agencies 17
Chapter 5 Notification of Deliberation Results, etc. 18
Section 3: Operating Guidelines for the Citizens' Prosecution Committee 19
go.
Composition of the Committee 19
me.
Committee Review Subject 20
all.
Deliberation Procedure 21
Section 4 Prosecution Investigation Review Committee 22
go.
Composition of the Committee 22
me.
23. Subjects and Contents of Deliberation by the Prosecution Investigation Review Committee
all.
Committee Convening Procedure 23
la.
Committee deliberation procedures by subject of deliberation 24
Section 5 Right to Request Supplementary Investigation 26
go.
Contents of the Supplementary Investigation Request System 26
me.
Compliance with the request for supplementary investigation 27
all.
Right to demand corrective action 28
(A) Contents of the corrective action request system 28
Section 6 Right to Request Reinvestigation 30
1.
30 Subjects of Reinvestigation Request
go.
Significance of the decision not to prosecute 30
me.
Legal nature of the decision not to prosecute 30
2.
Reinvestigation Request System 31
3.
Request for transfer after reinvestigation 33
4.
Deadline for requesting reinvestigation: 33
Section 7. Submission of all case records when investigation is suspended 34
1.
Investigation Suspension System 34
2.
Procedure for filing an objection to the suspension of investigation 34
3.
Quasi-appeal against the disposition of a judicial police officer 35
go.
Meaning 35
me.
Quasi-appeal against detention order 35
all.
Notification of Investigation Results 36
(a) Notification of investigation results 36
(I) Notification of investigation results to the complainant, etc. based on the decision not to prosecute 37
(1) Meaning 37
(2) Notice of case forwarding in response to objection 37
(3) Supplementary Investigation Results Notification 38
(4) Reinvestigation Results 38
(All) Inspection and copying of investigation documents 38
(1) Meaning 38
Latest format for application for prosecution investigation review
(2) Latest form of application for prosecution investigation review 41
(3) Latest form of police investigation review application form 44
(4) Latest format of application for objection to decision of non-prosecution 1 46
(5) How to effectively utilize facts and data when writing an objection to a decision not to prosecute 48
Latest format for actual cases
(6) Application for Investigation Review 1 Actual Case Latest Format 55
(7) Application for Investigation Review 2 Actual Case Latest Format 62
(8) Application for Investigation Review 3 Actual Case Latest Format 65
(9) Application for Investigation Review 4 Actual Case Latest Format 68
(10) Application for Investigation Review 5 Actual Case Latest Format 70
(11) Application for Objection to Decision of Non-Prosecution 6 Actual Case Latest Format 72
(12) Application for Objection to Decision of Non-Prosecution 7 Actual Case Latest Format 81
(13) Objection to the decision to suspend investigation 8 Actual case Latest format 89
(14) Objection to decision to suspend reference 9 Actual case Latest format 99
(15) Objection to Decision to Suspend Reference 10 Actual Case Latest Format 107

Among criminal cases, the police have the primary investigative authority and the authority to conclude investigations in over 90% of cases. Therefore, if a judicial police officer determines that a suspect is guilty of a crime as a result of an investigation, the police can send the case to the prosecution with an opinion to indict based on their primary investigative authority. If the police determine that the suspect is not guilty of a crime, they can make a decision not to send the case (meaning that the police will conclude the case based solely on their investigation and judgment without sending the suspect to the prosecution with an opinion to indict).

Due to the inherent nature of police investigations, the process or results may not meet the public's expectations.
However, if efforts to uncover the truth and the criminal investigation process build a certain level of public consensus, there is no doubt that the public's perception of police investigations will significantly improve.

As the Criminal Procedure Act has been revised and implemented, the term "request for investigation review" itself may be unfamiliar.
An application for investigation review is a system that allows a person involved in a case to apply for investigation review in cases of accusation or general criminal cases when there is dissatisfaction or disagreement with the biased investigation by the investigator in charge of the case or the investigation personnel, or with the investigation process or results.

This means that not only must criminal investigations be conducted fairly, but also that the public can directly express their opinions and raise objections regarding the investigation process and results of a crime in order to establish a police force that is trusted by the public, and that the role of the police is to determine whether the investigation is illegal or unfair and recommend measures such as reinvestigation.

A person involved in a case may file an application for an investigation review regarding an ongoing investigation. This is a procedure for a person involved in a case to raise an objection when they believe there is something unfair in the police investigation process or results. (Refer to Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Rules on Police Investigation Case Review) This is a system designed to ensure the fairness of the investigation and protect the rights of the person involved in the case.
Therefore, the request for investigation review can raise a wide range of issues, including not only the outcome of the case but also procedural issues during the investigation process.

The main purpose of requesting an investigation review is to correct unfair or inadequate investigation processes and ensure a fair investigation.
The investigation review committee, comprised of internal and external experts from the National Police Agency, reviews the case, helping to ensure objective judgment.

Through the investigation review, the parties involved in the case have their rights protected and the police in charge of the investigation have the opportunity to improve the investigative process.
Meanwhile, this also includes cases where the suspect was found guilty of a crime as a result of an investigation by a judicial police officer and the case was sent to the prosecution with a recommendation for indictment, whereupon a final decision was made.
Even in cases where the case has been sent to the prosecution and the prosecutor has decided not to indict, if you are dissatisfied with the result, you can appeal to the competent High Prosecutors' Office through the district prosecutors' office or branch office to which the prosecutor belongs. If the appeal is dismissed, you can seek relief by filing a re-appeal to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office or filing a re-filing request with the competent High Court through the district prosecutors' office or branch office to which the prosecutor belongs.

Additionally, if new evidence emerges or the facts change after the prosecution's decision not to indict, you may file an investigation review request with the police station in charge of the case, the city/provincial police agency, the district prosecutor's office, or the branch office.
However, cases may not be processed simply due to misunderstandings in the investigation process or vague dissatisfaction with the results.

The cases subject to the investigation review application system exclude traffic accidents and cases transferred from the prosecution. In the case of traffic accidents, the Traffic Accident Civilian Review Committee can once again verify the results of the police traffic accident investigation.
The Traffic Accident Civilian Deliberation Committee is an advisory council created to strengthen the verification of police investigation results in traffic accidents. It is an advisory council created to fairly deliberate the problems of the relevant cases by having experts with an interest in the traffic field attend cases where the perpetrator and victim are in dispute due to traffic accidents or cases where complaints are filed alleging biased investigations during the police investigation process.
This is because there are frequent cases in which the parties involved in a traffic accident claim to be mutual victims and file complaints about the police investigation during the process of handling traffic accident cases. In order to contribute to improving public satisfaction by handling cases fairly with a sense of responsibility together with citizens, a committee was formed. In the future, the committee is being operated to refer to citizens' opinions on problematic cases during the process of handling traffic accidents.

An investigation review request can raise issues throughout the investigation process.
It can address a wide range of issues, including unfairness in the investigative process, procedural violations, investigators' attitudes, and human rights issues.

Therefore, if a party involved in a case (including the complainant, the informant, the victim, the suspect, the person under investigation, the person subject to complaint, and their representatives) believes that the appropriateness or legality of the police investigation/investigation procedure or result has been significantly violated, they may submit an investigation review application to the police station to which the investigator in charge belongs or the city/provincial police agency (hereinafter referred to as “investigation review application”) by writing an investigation review application form (Article 2, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the “Rules on Police Investigation Case Review”).

The chairman and external members of the Investigation Review Committee are appointed by the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency from among ① investigative experts who are not public officials of the National Police Agency and have been engaged in investigative work for more than 5 years, ② persons who are qualified as lawyers and have been engaged in legal affairs for more than 5 years, ③ persons who have served as assistant professors or higher in the fields of law, public administration, or police science at a university or an accredited research institute for more than 5 years, and ④ persons who have been active in various social fields such as education, media, culture, and arts for more than 5 years and have abundant knowledge and experience (Article 11, Paragraph 2, Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the “Rules on Deliberation of Police Investigation Cases”).
The internal committee members are appointed by the director or section chief level civil servants nominated by the head of the National Investigation Headquarters, or by the section chiefs or division chiefs of investigation departments under the city or provincial police agencies (Article 11, Paragraph 3 and Article 20, Paragraph 2 of the “Rules on Deliberation of Police Investigation Cases”).
The Investigation Review Division of the city/provincial police agency is the department in charge of investigating cases for which investigation review is requested and must investigate and process them objectively and fairly (Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the “Rules on Police Investigation Case Review”).
The investigative review request system is a system that increases the fairness of investigations and opens up the possibility of citizen participation in the investigative process.

In order to enhance the fairness of police investigations, the police introduced the provisions on disqualification, recusal, and avoidance, which are only stipulated for judges under the Criminal Procedure Act, into the police investigation stage.
The Police Reform Committee recommended that the 「Criminal Investigation Rules」 only stipulate recusal, which is the obligation for police officers to step down from their investigative duties, and that additional provisions be added regarding recusal and avoidance.
Accordingly, the police introduced the disqualification system applicable to the court under the Criminal Procedure Act and codified the recusal system, which has been implemented as a guideline since 2011, into the 'investigator replacement request system.'
In addition, the “Criminal Investigation Rules” were revised to specify more specific procedures and requirements for evasion that had previously been stipulated (effective January 2, 2018).

Disqualification refers to the exclusion of an investigator related to a case or a person involved in the case from his/her duties, avoidance refers to the system in which a person involved in a case requests a change of investigator, and evasion refers to the system in which a police officer voluntarily withdraws from the duties of investigation or investigation command.
Among these, avoidance is significant in that it grants the right to apply to the person involved in the case.
A suspect, victim, and their attorney may, if ① there are grounds for disqualification and ② there are objective and specific circumstances that make it appear that a police officer has conducted an unfair investigation or there are concerns about such, write a request for disqualification and submit it to the head of the audit department of the police station to which the police officer subject to the request for disqualification belongs (Article 9, Paragraph 1, Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the “Criminal Investigation Rules”).

A request for recusal may only be made for cases of accusations, reports, petitions, petitions, or reports filed at a police station (Article 9, Paragraph 2 of the “Criminal Investigation Rules”), and the head of the audit department that has received the request for recusal may not accept the request if ① the subject case has been closed, ② there has already been a request for recusal for the same reason, ③ there is no explanation for the reason for recusal, ④ “the request for recusal was made against the express will of the defense attorney, suspect, or victim” or if the request for recusal was made for a case other than an accusation, report, petition, or petition, ⑤ it is clear that the request for recusal is only for the purpose of delaying or obstructing the investigation (Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the “Criminal Investigation Rules”).
With the recent abolition of prosecutors' investigative authority and the restriction of the scope of prosecutors' direct investigations, citizens have become more aware of the importance of police investigations and interest in the police investigation system has also increased.
This has also led to an increase in requests to challenge investigators.

All parties involved in a case who have come across this document and believe that their case has been unfairly investigated or that they can no longer expect a fair investigation, can immediately seek relief for their rights by filing an investigation review request. Therefore, we encourage you to actively utilize the investigation review request system to avoid any injustice.
thank you