Ahead of the General Election, Pastor Preaching "Hwang Kyo-ahn Elder for the District..." Sentenced to Fine Confirmed

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A pastor who preached to vote for a specific party during worship service ahead of the April 15 general election last year was sentenced to a fine by the Supreme Court.

On the 22nd, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jaehyung) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing Pastor A to a fine of 500,000 won in the appeal trial on charges of violating the Public Official Election Act.

Earlier, Pastor A was prosecuted for making statements such as "A good party has been formed this time, the Christian Liberty Unification Party," and "Vote for candidate number 2, Elder Hwang Kyoan," to about 10 church members while preaching at a church in Seoul on March 29 last year.

The first trial sentenced him to a fine of 700,000 won. The first trial court pointed out, "The defendant's actions pose a risk of undermining the fairness of the election," and "Especially, the crime was committed by using the position and influence as a church pastor, which is a serious offense, and the defendant shows no remorse." It added, "However, only 13 church members listened to the defendant's sermon, so the actual impact on the election appears to be limited."

The second trial reduced the fine to 500,000 won. This was because, following the amendment of the Public Official Election Act at the end of last year, 'oral election campaigning' excluding the use of loudspeakers or speeches at large outdoor gatherings was included as permitted election campaigning before the official election campaign period, resulting in some charges being dismissed. Dismissal refers to a ruling that terminates criminal proceedings due to reasons such as the statute of limitations having expired or the abolition of the penalty due to changes in the law after the crime. However, Pastor A's use of his official position to conduct election campaigning was recognized as a guilty act.

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The court stated, "The lower court did not err in its interpretation of election campaigning under Article 85, Paragraph 3 of the Public Official Election Act and the unconstitutionality doctrine," and dismissed all appeals.