1,582 Cases Referred by the Korea Customs Service, Their Status Unclear After Prosecution Service Abolished

1. Overview

After the Prosecutors’ Office was abolished and the Public Prosecution Office opened on October 2, 2026, it emerged that the Korea Customs Service did not know what had happened to 1,582 cases its special judicial police officers (SJPOs) had referred to prosecutors by the end of August that year. The information was made public on October 15 by Lee Jong-wook, a member of the National Assembly’s Finance and Economy Committee.

The issue came to light when Lee, a member of the People Power Party, released information he had obtained from the Korea Customs Service. Drug cases accounted for the largest share of the referrals, at 1,123, prompting concerns about a “gap in drug investigations.” The Public Prosecution Office said the cases had not disappeared and were being handled in sequence, and that it had not previously notified the Customs Service of individual case outcomes. Meanwhile, concerns continued that investigations could miss critical opportunities.

2. Status of Referred Cases

According to information obtained from the Korea Customs Service and released by Lee’s office, the Customs Service’s SJPOs had referred a total of 1,582 cases to prosecutors by the end of August that year. By type, there were 1,123 drug cases, 237 customs cases, 139 foreign-exchange cases, 89 foreign-trade cases, and 58 intellectual-property-rights cases. News Law noted that seven out of every ten referred cases involved drugs.

News Law explained that seized goods and account activity are key evidence in drug and foreign-exchange cases, so delays in follow-up investigations directly affect efforts to trace accomplices and recover criminal proceeds. Lee also said that missing the right time to investigate drug smuggling and illegal foreign-exchange transactions makes it difficult to secure evidence and criminal funds. This prompted concerns that an “investigative gap” might become a reality.

3. Notice from the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office and Loss of Contact

On September 30, two days before the Prosecutors’ Office was abolished, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office notified the Korea Customs Service that existing referred cases would be transferred to the agency overseeing the SJPOs, sent back for supplementary investigation, or handled through guidance and advice. However, the specific outcomes were reportedly not communicated to the Customs Service after the abolition took effect on October 2.

In response to an inquiry from Lee’s office, the Customs Service said, “Since the Prosecutors’ Office has been abolished, the Public Prosecution Office should transfer the existing referred cases back to Customs, request supplementary investigations, or handle them through guidance and advice, but we have not received any such communication.” As a result, the Customs Service was left unaware of how the cases were being handled.

By the 12th after the Public Prosecution Office opened, the Customs Service had requested guidance and advice from it in 47 cases, while the Public Prosecution Office had notified the Customs Service of supplementary investigations or warrant applications in six cases. News Law reported that these figures suggest that the Customs Service had received information about the handling of only a very small portion of the 1,582 cases. However, the report did not specify whether those 47 and six cases were among the 1,582.

4. Public Prosecution Office’s Explanation

The Public Prosecution Office said that even after the Prosecutors’ Office was abolished, cases referred by SJPOs could not disappear or be buried and were being handled in sequence. It said the cases were assigned within the Public Prosecution Office, given case numbers, and managed in the Criminal Justice Information System (KICS). Prosecutors review assigned cases and decide whether to indict or not to indict, and request supplementary investigations if evidence is insufficient. Cases that undergo supplementary investigations are also handled after the records are reviewed.

In response to the criticism that no one had been in contact, the Office said that even before the change, it did not separately notify SJPOs of the handling direction or outcome of individual cases, except for updates on supplementary investigations. An official from the Public Prosecution Office said, “We do not separately contact SJPOs at other agencies or the police—not just the Korea Customs Service—to say whether a referred case will be indicted or sent back for supplementary investigation. We review the records and reach a conclusion, and we do not notify them of the conclusion either.”

5. National Assembly Audit and the Customs Service’s Response

At a National Assembly audit held on October 15 at the Daejeon Government Complex, lawmakers criticized the Customs Service’s overall investigative system following the abolition of the Prosecutors’ Office. According to Sejeong Ilbo, lawmaker Yoon Young-seok pointed out that 299 of the 728 Customs Service SJPOs (41.1%) had less than one year of investigative experience, including 189 newly designated in July that year. Yoon also noted that prosecutors had directed investigations in 1,698 of the 2,655 cases investigated the previous year (64.0%). The point was that independent decision-making had become more important now that prosecutors’ investigative direction had been replaced by a system of guidance and advice. NoCut News reported that lawmaker Jung Sung-ho compared 2021 and 2025, saying the number of cases subject to prosecutors’ investigative direction had risen from 1,200 to 2,000. The figures cited differ between reports.

Korea Customs Service Commissioner Lee Jong-wook said that since October 2, the Customs Service had requested guidance and advice from the Public Prosecution Office in about 47 cases, adding, “Although the power to direct investigations has disappeared, we are cooperating extensively in a similar way.” In response to the claim that 41.1% of SJPOs had less than one year of experience, he argued that the submitted data was based on how long each person had worked in their current department. He explained that, counting their entire careers in drug investigations, the average was about five years, while sixth-grade civil servants at team-leader level had around ten years of experience.

As a measure to address the issue, he said the Customs Service was pursuing plans to establish an Investigation Review Division or Investigation Review Committee at regional customs offices. He also said that the number of legal advisers, currently four, would be expanded to include the Daegu and Gwangju Regional Customs Offices and the Pyeongtaek District Customs Office. According to a Newsis report, the commissioner responded, “The Public Prosecution Office can be asked for guidance or advice, and the Customs Service is required to follow it unless there is a legitimate reason not to. A cooperation system is in place even at night on holidays, so urgent warrant applications are possible.” Lee, the lawmaker, argued that the Customs Offense Investigation Review Committee, the existing internal oversight body, had reached a decision different from the investigating department in only four of the 40 cases it reviewed between 2021 and the end of August that year, and said its functions and authority needed to be completely redesigned.

6. Authenticity Debate

The central question is whether the 1,582 cases were actually left unattended, creating an “investigative gap,” or whether they were proceeding through normal channels as the Public Prosecution Office said, with only the absence of outcome notifications being standard practice.

6.1. The view that an investigative gap has become a reality

Those who take this view argue that the fact that even the referring agency does not know what has happened to the cases itself reveals a problem with the cooperation system. The Supreme Prosecutors’ Office notified the Customs Service of its intended handling process, but no specific updates followed, and the Customs Service does not even know whether the cases are being transferred, sent back for supplementary investigation, or handled through guidance and advice. An editorial in Cheonji Ilbo said further confirmation was needed to determine whether the cases had actually been left unattended, but noted that an agency being unaware of the progress of cases it had referred pointed to a serious flaw in the cooperation system. Can a case be called “being handled normally” if the agency that referred it does not know what is happening to it?

The change in the system’s structure is another basis for this view. News Law noted that with the end of prosecutors’ authority to direct SJPO investigations, the Customs Service’s SJPOs had become an independent investigative body responsible for deciding the direction of investigations and its recommendations on whether to refer cases. Public Prosecution Office prosecutors can decide whether to indict and request supplementary investigations, but cannot conduct supplementary investigations themselves. The argument is that if cases already transferred to the Public Prosecution Office pile up without anyone deciding which side will take follow-up action, they effectively come to a halt. News Law said the government would find it difficult to avoid criticism that neither investigators nor suspects can know the current stage of a case unless it makes public the criteria and timelines for transferring cases.

The nature of drug and foreign-exchange cases also lends weight to this argument. Lee said that missing the right time to investigate such cases makes it difficult to secure evidence and criminal funds. Jung expressed concern that the inability of prosecutors to direct early coercive investigative measures had made the risk of evidence being ruled inadmissible due to procedural violations extremely high. If these concerns are valid, the breakdown in communication is by no means trivial.

6.2. The view that the cases are simply being handled in sequence

Those who take this view first point out that the system makes it impossible for cases to disappear. According to the Public Prosecution Office, referred cases are assigned case numbers as soon as they are assigned and entered into KICS. The argument is that it is difficult to say a case has disappeared when it has a case number and is recorded in the system. The process in which prosecutors review the records, decide whether to indict or not to indict, or request supplementary investigations is also continuing as before.

They also argue that the lack of outcome notifications is not a new development. The Public Prosecution Office said it does not separately inform SJPOs at other agencies or the police—not just the Customs Service—whether it will indict or request supplementary investigations. The explanation is that the practice of not providing updates except on supplementary investigations simply continued after the abolition. If so, the fact that “there has been no contact” alone is weak grounds for concluding that the cases have been left unattended.

They also cite evidence that cooperation is actually taking place. By the 12th after the Public Prosecution Office opened, the Customs Service had requested guidance and advice in 47 cases, and the Public Prosecution Office had notified the Customs Service of supplementary investigations or warrant applications in six cases. The commissioner said that a cooperation system was in place even at night on holidays, making urgent warrant applications possible. The argument is that any gap lies in the notification system, not in the entire investigative process coming to a halt.

The two sides interpret the same facts differently. Reports have not established how many of the 1,582 cases have already been handled or what stage they are at, and further confirmation is needed to determine whether any cases have actually been left unattended. Lee called on the government and the Customs Service to promptly confirm the transfer and handling status of the existing cases.

7. Trivia

• The People Power Party lawmaker who raised the issue and the Korea Customs Service commissioner who appeared at the National Assembly audit share the same name: Lee Jong-wook. Reports distinguish them by their titles.
• An early Yonhap News article posted on FM Korea used the figure “1,500 cases” in its body, while the headline and subsequent reports gave the figure as 1,582.
• The same day, the National Assembly audit also discussed a former investigation team leader at Seoul Customs, an SJPO unit of the Korea Customs Service, who was recently sentenced to a lengthy prison term in a first-trial ruling on charges of accepting bribes from drug offenders in exchange for covering up investigations, among other offenses. Commissioner Lee Jong-wook said, “I am deeply sorry,” and pledged to make every effort to prevent a recurrence.