Court: "Prosecution's Non-Indictment Decision on Oh Se-hoon for Election Law Violation is Justified"…Reconsideration Request Dismissed

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Jung-yoon] A court has ruled that the prosecution's decision not to indict Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon, who was accused of disseminating false information related to the 'Naegok-dong land' and the 'Pie City project' ahead of the Seoul mayoral by-election, was justified.

According to the court on the 6th, the Criminal Division 30 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judges Baek Kang-jin, Jo Gwang-guk, Jeong Su-jin) recently dismissed a retrial petition filed by Shin Seung-mok, representative of the Anti-Corruption National Participation Solidarity, who appealed against the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office's decision not to indict.

Earlier in April, during the Seoul mayoral by-election campaign, the Democratic Party of Korea raised suspicions that Mayor Oh, who was Seoul mayor in 2009, was involved in designating his in-laws' land as a public housing district and received a 'self-compensation' of 3.6 billion KRW.

At the time, as a candidate, Mayor Oh denied the allegations during a debate, stating, "I was not aware of the existence or location of this land at the time, and the district designation was a matter decided solely by the Housing Bureau Director." In response, the Democratic Party accused Mayor Oh of violating election law by spreading false information and filed a complaint.

The prosecution decided not to indict Mayor Oh on October 6, just before the statute of limitations for violating the Public Official Election Act expired, explaining, "Even if the debate statements were false, if they were made to deny the suspicions, it is difficult to consider them as dissemination of false information under the Public Official Election Act."

On October 7, Representative Shin filed a retrial petition requesting the court to overturn the prosecution's non-indictment decision and order prosecution, but the court did not accept it.

The court stated, "Only candidates and political parties who filed complaints under the Public Official Election Act can file retrial petitions, but the petitioner does not fall under this category," adding, "It is difficult to consider the petitioner as a direct victim, so they cannot be regarded as having the right to file a complaint."

The court further added, "Even considering the merits, after thoroughly reviewing the case records and all materials submitted by the petitioner, the prosecution's decision not to indict is acceptable, and there is insufficient evidence to recognize the non-indictment decision as unjust."