The Korean Constitution prescribes the principle of warrant system as a systematic way of actual realization of constitutionalism and has been giving prosecutors an exclusive right to request a warrant by stipulating an article that they are the only subjects who are entitled to requesting a warrant since the fifth revision of the Constitution in 1962.
The warrant system can be understood as a judicial control and/or a pre-constraint against compulsory investigation practices by the investigation bodies and ultimately as a system aimed for realizing the power check and balance of power during the investigation procedures. That is to say, by controlling compulsory execution power abuse of investigation bodies and thus, safeguarding individual freedom and property with the authorization of a warrant by a constitutionally guaranteed judge, this warrant system seeks to actually harmonize the realization of investigation objectives through jurisdiction and banning with the protection of basic rights of the citizens. The warrant system means authorization of a warrant by a politically neutral and independent judge in the matter of compulsory investigation. Then we have to consider deeply whether who is responsible for requesting a warrant is the fundamental issue in the warrant system or not and why our Constitution guarantees the right only to prosecutors.
As far as the introduction process of prosecutors exclusive right to request a warrant is concerned, I could not find the constitutionally justifiable evidence of it, and I contested that investigational structure between the police and prosecutors and the right to request a warrant are two different matters based on criminal policy judgement, not something logically inferred.
To cross check, I have searched warrant systems of the U.S.A. the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Japan. No country mentioned above authorizes the exclusive right to request a warrant to prosecutors, and no country stipulates the right in their Constitutions. When it comes to relationship between the police and prosecutors, the exclusive right works as a means of prosecutors securing the controlling right over the judicial police and a powerful control measure losing its original intention.
The exclusive right cannot be taken as a irrevisable constitutional article. It can be discussed when there is constitutional revision in that it appeared first at the fifth revised Constitution for the sake of the authorities.
It is safe to say that there is little chance of violating citizens' basic rights even when the right to request a warrant is authorized to the judicial police, because it will be issued by a judiciary judge's fair judgement. Still, this measure can help increase human rights because the judge can decide with rapidity whether the suspects without a warrant are put to a compulsory measures by the investigation bodies and can release the suspects if they do not need to be arrested and confined and thus, can shorten the confinement period of the suspects. The independent right to request a warrant by judicial police may be positively discussed if aftercontrol over the police is accompanied by the prosecutors with the main purpose that when the investigation by the police is done unfairly, and there needs to be reexamination by the prosecutors to seek the truth and thus, satisfy the complaint of those involved.
In conclusion, the right to request a warrant by the judicial police can be said to increase the rapidity and efficiency of the investigation on the part of those involved with the investigation, and on the part of citizens, they will be helped to guarantee their basic rights when the right is harmoniously operated with the complementary device, that is, legal expert prosecutors' legal examination about the investigational procedures and the issue of a warrant by the judiciary authorities.