CONCLUSION
I repeat that prosecutorial neutrality has been at issue in Korea. Certainly, prosecutorial work has been much distorted. However, the problem is not whether the prosecutors are neutral or not.
More dangerous is the fact that he has powers which are not legally given to him. Even if he is not an examining magistrate or district judge, he seems to have the right to â€?compile an authorÂitative written dossier recording his examinations of witnesses and accused.’[297] This is not at all desirable. It is because there was no practical means to stop the prosecutor’s misuse of power.All the more horrible was that the courts themselves aggravated this probÂlem by abandoning their duty of control. Now, the Judiciary Reform in Korea begins to consider the prosecutor just as the commander of the investigation and, at the same time, as the proper party in an open trial. This means that the true adversarial system is being introduced and tried here. I am curious to see how the prosecutorial office will react to this paradigm shift. Visibly, the prosÂecutors are well prepared for the change.
However, we also need to remember that the prosecutor is still a member of the magistracy. He is �in the control tower’ and has to do a lot of things there. It is also a good thing that the prosecutor stops playing the role of judge. He has to now find a way of cooperating with the examining magistrate as one of two key players of the whole criminal procedure. (6 JKL 163.)