A recent editorial by Kwon Tae-ho highlights the internal strife within the ruling party concerning the government's prosecutorial reform legislation, which appears to exacerbate tensions at a time that should be focused on unification. While there may be some signs of easing tensions within the ruling party, alarming conspiracy theories are circulating among its support base. The author expresses understanding toward the government's considerations to minimize adverse effects from the reform, particularly in the separation of investigative and prosecutorial powers, but also raises key concerns that indicate overarching issues still exist.

Key points of contention include the relationship between the proposed Major Crimes Investigation Agency (MCIA) and the Public Prosecution Service. The reform plans specify that the MCIA must notify prosecutors when investigating major crimes, and prosecutors have the right to request changes in investigators if they see issues. This could facilitate problematic 'special investigations' targeting specific individuals, potentially complicating cooperation and weakening checks on excessive probes. The structure implies that the prosecutorial office might still retain significant control over the direction of investigations, despite being designed to foster independence.

Furthermore, the proposal envisions establishing a three-tiered structure for the Public Prosecution Service, without granting it investigative powers. The rationale behind this move remains unclear, especially since this tiered system resembles the judicial branch, which operates on a different principle. The author questions the necessity of having multiple levels of prosecution when the number of senior prosecutor positions is relatively limited. The names and hierarchy used in the reform also raise concerns about whether they truly reflect the intended reform's symbolism and utility, suggesting a need for careful reconsideration to ensure genuine progress.