Supreme Court Confirms Suspended Sentence for Former Reporter Who Made 'Unfair Proposal' to Jeonju Mayoral Candidate

A former journalist who urged a prospective candidate running in the 8th nationwide local elections held in June 2022 to accept an unfair proposal from an election broker has been sentenced to a suspended prison term.

On the 17th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) dismissed the appeal of former daily newspaper reporter Kim Mo, who was indicted for violating the Public Official Election Act (bribery and inducement), and upheld the lower court's ruling sentencing Kim to 10 months in prison with a 2-year suspension.

On May 23, 2022, local civic groups held a press conference in front of the Jeonbuk Provincial Police Agency, urging a thorough investigation into the election broker scandal that emerged during the Jeonju mayoral primary process.

The court stated, "There is no error affecting the judgment such as departing from the limits of free evaluation of evidence contrary to logic and the rules of experience, misinterpreting the legal principles regarding the interpretation of 'inducement' as stipulated in Article 230(3) and Article 135(3) of the Public Official Election Act, or violating the principles prohibiting extended and analogical interpretation derived from the principle of legality."

Article 230 (Bribery and Inducement Offenses) of the Public Official Election Act stipulates in paragraphs 1 and 2 that those who provide or express the intention to provide money or property benefits to voters, candidates, prospective candidates, or related election campaign staff shall be punished. Paragraph 3 of the same article punishes those who 'instruct, induce, request, or mediate' such acts.

Article 135 (Allowances and Reimbursement for Election Officials) paragraph 3 of the Public Official Election Act prohibits, except in cases stipulated by the Act, the provision or expression of intention to provide money or other benefits related to election campaigning, regardless of the name, as well as promises, instructions, inducements, mediation, requests, or receipt thereof. Whether there was 'inducement' in this case was a key issue.

Kim, who worked as a political reporter (deputy editor) for a regional daily newspaper in Jeonbuk, was prosecuted on charges of urging Lee Joong-seon, a prospective candidate from the Democratic Party who declared his candidacy for mayor of Jeonju in October 2021, to accept offers of money and benefits from election brokers with whom he had a close relationship.

This case became known when Lee, the former prospective candidate, withdrew on April 7, 2022, and released recordings of conversations with the brokers. The election brokers reportedly promised to provide money and other benefits to Lee while demanding personnel authority and business permits upon election.

The two brokers were A, a former civic group leader and head of a housing management company, and B, a former vice president of the same housing management company. They were prosecuted for demanding that Lee, the former prospective candidate, "I will collect money from companies and use it to run the organization," and "If you are elected mayor, give business rights to those companies."

B told Lee, "Jeonju has 35 neighborhoods, and we need to organize about 6 to 7 leaders per neighborhood, totaling around 200 people," and "If you keep giving them 500,000 won per month, you can win the election," according to investigations.

Also, when Lee rejected these demands, B reportedly said, "A is a genius at elections. You are refusing the proposal and not helping," and "There are over 120 director and section chief positions related to construction and civil engineering in Jeonju city; why can't you give 5 or 6 of those?"

These two brokers were sentenced to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment in the January appeal trial last year and withdrew their appeals, making the verdict final.

At the time, although Lee rejected the brokers' proposals, Kim visited Lee and urged him to accept the offers, saying things like, "It's not like you have to write a memorandum; why can't you even say 'I'll get you elected and we'll see then'?", "People who bet put in 1 billion or several hundred million won, but you just end with words," and "No one who took money from those people has had trouble."

The first trial court sentenced Kim to 10 months in prison with a 2-year suspension.

At trial, Kim's side argued that Kim's remarks to Lee were merely one-time, passive expressions of opinion intended as 'advice' to help Lee, a high school alumnus and hometown friend, make a decision, hoping for Lee's election, and did not constitute active 'inducement' to provide benefits to brokers.

However, the court rejected Kim's argument, stating, "The defendant's remarks were not merely advice given in a ceremonial or social context as a friend to help Lee's judgment, but rather an expression of intent to actively induce Lee, a prospective mayoral candidate of Jeonju, to provide money or other benefits related to election campaigning to brokers who have been involved in many elections, securing party members, promoting to constituents, and providing election strategies."

Kim also claimed that he only spoke after hearing about the proposal from Lee and did not go to urge acceptance, but the court judged that Kim knew Lee had rejected the brokers' proposal to provide election funds in exchange for personnel authority and business rights related to construction permits and went to urge acceptance.

The court found evidence of Kim's intent to persuade and induce, citing his conversations with acquaintances where he said things like "You shouldn't become mayor without correcting your attitude," and "You should be grateful to those who make the mayor."

Kim appealed, but the second trial court's judgment was the same.

The court pointed out, "The defendant shows no aversion to conducting elections using illegal election funds," and "It clearly appears that he intended to undermine election fairness and promote illegal vested interests, thereby damaging trust in democratic politics."

It added, "The defendant's qualifications as a journalist responsible for public accountability in establishing a fair election culture are questionable," and "Although he claims to have lived exemplary life as a journalist for over 20 years, considering his use of outdated and distorted information in elections, the lower court's ruling is appropriate."

The Supreme Court also found no problem with the lower courts' judgments.