Controversy Over Warning Measures for 'Election Law Violation' Against Gure-gun County Governor Candidate

Election Commission Confirms Payment Instead of 10,000 Won Alcohol Cost for Residents... Verbal Warning

Local Residents Say "Regardless of Amount, Financial Election Practices Must Be Eradicated"

Gurye-gun Election Commission Building Exterior

[Asia Economy Honam Reporting Headquarters Reporter Lee Hyung-kwon] The Gurye-gun Election Commission in Jeollanam-do has drawn local criticism for issuing only a verbal warning to a prospective candidate for Gurye-gun mayor in next year’s local elections for violating the Public Official Election Act.

The reason is that strong measures must be taken regardless of the amount involved to eradicate monetary election practices that occur every election.

According to the Gurye Election Commission on the 3rd, prospective candidate A for Gurye-gun mayor in next year’s local elections was given a warning on the 13th of last month for violating the Public Official Election Act (gift-giving act).

The Gurye Election Commission launched an investigation after receiving a report that A paid 10,000 won for drinks consumed by residents at a tavern during the Gurye 5-day Market on April 18.

At that time, A handed the tavern owner a 50,000 won bill to cover the cost of three bottles of beer, which amounted to 10,000 won, but when there was no change, he took the bill back and later paid again, it is known.

Regarding this, the Gurye Election Commission judged it to be a gift-giving act but issued only a verbal warning due to the small amount involved.

Some argue that the punishment was too lenient and that there are loopholes in the Gurye Election Commission’s investigation.

There are two main grounds for this claim.

First, doubts about the reliability of the investigation arose after it was revealed that A’s family member retired from a senior position at the Jeollanam-do Election Commission.

The other is that A has a history of being fined 900,000 won last year for violating election laws.

While it might be understandable if it were a first offense, the argument is that the Election Commission cannot be trusted if it only issued a warning despite confirming the gift of money and goods despite past offenses.

Resident B said, “Couldn’t the influence of a family member who retired from a senior position at the Election Commission have affected this?” and added, “Since suspicions have been raised, a more fair investigation is needed.”

In response, a Gurye Election Commission official explained, “It is already known that A’s family member retired from a senior position,” and said, “Regardless of this, the Gurye Election Commission conducted a fair investigation and disposition, staking its own and the commission’s personal honor.”

He also stated, “The fine A received for violating election laws was for a different violation than this gift-giving case,” and added, “This warning from the Election Commission is not something that disappears but remains on record and will be cumulatively considered for harsher punishment if monetary election practices occur in the future.”