'Violation of Public Official Election Act' Jo Su-jin of People Power Party fined 800,000 won... Retains Assembly Seat

Rep. Jo Su-jin of the People Power Party, suspected of 'property declaration omission,' is attending the first trial sentencing hearing held at the Seoul Western District Court in Mapo-gu on the afternoon of the 27th.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Donghoon Jeong] Jo Su-jin (49), a member of the People Power Party who was prosecuted for underreporting her assets during the 21st general election, was sentenced to a fine of 800,000 KRW in the first trial.

The Criminal Division 11 of the Seoul Western District Court (Chief Judge Moon Byung-chan) on the 27th sentenced Jo, who was indicted without detention on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act, to a fine of 800,000 KRW.

Elected officials lose their position if they are sentenced to a fine of 1 million KRW or more for violating the Public Official Election Act. Previously, the prosecution requested a fine of 1.5 million KRW for Jo, but since she was sentenced to a fine of 800,000 KRW, she will retain her position as a member of the National Assembly.

The court stated, "It is considered that the defendant could have at least implicitly recognized that the asset status report she prepared would be submitted to the National Election Commission as is after being nominated as a proportional representation candidate and could be disclosed as the candidate’s assets," and added, "All the charges are recognized as guilty."

Jo was prosecuted for deliberately omitting a private bond worth 500 million KRW when reporting her assets during the general election. The prosecution judged that Jo knowingly submitted some false asset information to her party with the intention of being elected.

In response, Jo’s side has claimed that the underreporting of assets was not intentional and occurred due to a lack of knowledge about the reporting procedures.

The court said, "Considering that the defendant has worked for about 25 years at a media company in the social and political departments, it is difficult to see her as someone without knowledge or experience in public official asset registration and reporting," and added, "It is judged that she at least implicitly recognized that the asset status and the reported contents could differ when preparing the asset status report."

However, the court also stated, "It does not appear that false information about assets was deliberately and systematically recorded with intent, and since the asset details are not disclosed in materials distributed to voters as a proportional representation candidate, it is not considered to have had a decisive impact on her election as a member of the National Assembly. These factors were taken into account in determining the sentence."