Constitutional Court: "Returning Election Subsidies Due to Disqualification of Election Victory is Constitutional under the Public Official Election Act"

Constitutional Court: "No Violation of Property Rights and No Breach of Public Election System"

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the legal provision requiring the return of election expenses when an election is invalidated due to a violation of the Public Official Election Act does not violate the Constitution.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

According to the legal community on the 13th, the Constitutional Court delivered a ruling of constitutionality with 8 justices in favor (constitutional) and 1 against (unconstitutional) in the constitutional complaint case regarding Article 265-2, Paragraph 1 of the Public Official Election Act, filed by former Iksan Mayor Park Kyung-cheol.

Former Mayor Park was elected as an independent in the 2014 nationwide simultaneous local elections, but in October 2015, the Supreme Court confirmed a fine of 5 million won for charges including false statement disclosure, resulting in the invalidation of his election.

Accordingly, the Iksan City Election Commission demanded that former Mayor Park return the deposit of 10 million won and the reimbursed election expenses of 101.14 million won by December 2015, in accordance with the return provisions under the Public Official Election Act.

However, when former Mayor Park refused to return the funds, the government filed a lawsuit in March 2021 and won the first trial in September of the same year. Dissatisfied with the first trial's decision, former Mayor Park appealed and requested a constitutional review from the court, which was dismissed, leading him to file a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court in October 2021.

The Constitutional Court judged that "the provision under review does not violate the principle of proportionality, does not infringe on the property rights of those whose election is invalidated, and does not contravene the principle of public election financing."

However, Justice Lee Eun-ae dissented, stating, "Preventing the return of the deposit as a sanction for election crimes effectively imposes a property penalty on candidates without separate judicial review," and added, "The provision regarding the return of the deposit is unconstitutional."