Supreme Court Confirms Fines for Civic Group Officials Involved in 'General Election Defeat Campaign'

An Jin-geol, Director of the People's Livelihood Economy Research Institute / Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] Civic group officials who were prosecuted for conducting illegal defeat campaigns ahead of the 2016 20th National Assembly election have had their fines confirmed by the Supreme Court.

On the 30th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Daeyeop) announced that it upheld the original sentences of fines ranging from 300,000 to 2,000,000 KRW for 18 members of the '2016 General Election Citizens Network,' including Ahn Jingul, director of the People's Livelihood Economy Research Institute (49), who were indicted for violating the Public Official Election Act.

Previously, Director Ahn and others formed the '2016 General Election Citizens Network' with civic groups ahead of the April 13, 2016 general election and were prosecuted for conducting illegal defeat campaigns against candidates from Saenuri Party (currently People Power Party) or some independent candidates. They held press conferences in front of candidates' election offices using loudspeakers, banners, and placards. The banners and placards were found to contain phrases such as 'I won't vote for you,' 'Don't vote for this kind of candidate,' and 'Let's not give even a single vote.'

The first trial court stated, "The meetings were held with the intent to influence the election," sentencing Director Ahn to a fine of 3,000,000 KRW and other officials to fines ranging from 500,000 to 2,000,000 KRW. However, they were acquitted of illegal opinion poll charges. The court reasoned that their act of selecting defeat campaign targets through online voting surveys could not be considered opinion polls subject to the Public Official Election Act.

The appellate court reduced their sentences somewhat. The appellate court ruled, "It is difficult to see that the defendants committed the acts with the intent to actively violate the law, and they misinterpreted the law under the public interest purpose of preventing the election of unqualified candidates," adding, "There is no evidence that they received support or compensation from specific candidates or groups, and each meeting was conducted peacefully without physical conflict."

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The court stated, "The original court did not err in its understanding of the legal principles regarding opinion polls under the Public Official Election Act, nor in distinguishing between assemblies and press conferences prohibited under Article 103, Paragraph 3 of the same law."