Spouse's 'Suspended Prison Sentence' Confirmed, Park Hong-ryul Disqualified as Mokpo Mayor

The election of Park Hong-ryul, mayor of Mokpo City, was invalidated after his spouse was confirmed to receive a suspended prison sentence for violating the Public Official Election Act.

On the 27th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Shin Sook-hee) announced that it upheld the original court ruling sentencing A, who was indicted for violating the Public Official Election Act, to 1 year and 6 months in prison with a 3-year suspension. According to the Public Official Election Act, if the spouse of an elected official is confirmed to have received a fine of 3 million won or more for inducing election invalidation, the elected official’s election is to be declared invalid.

The Supreme Court stated, "There is no error in the lower court’s judgment regarding the establishment of the crime of violating the Public Official Election Act, the evidentiary value of the evidence, the principle of trial-centered proceedings, and the principle of direct examination."

Earlier, A, the wife of Mayor Park, was indicted on charges of conspiring to induce the invalidation of the election of former Mokpo Mayor Kim Jong-sik, a rival candidate during the local elections, by having an accomplice demand money and goods from Kim’s wife, B. The accomplice approached B and said, "Providing money and goods to campaign workers will make them work harder," and received 1 million won in cash and shrimp worth about 150,000 won. Another accomplice filmed this scene and reported it to the election commission, according to investigations.

During the trial, A claimed she did not conspire in the crime, and the first trial court accepted this, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy and acquitted A. However, the second trial overturned the first, sentencing A to a suspended prison term based on evidence such as dozens of phone calls between A and the accomplices before and after the crime.

The second trial court stated, "It is an unusual situation to dismiss the repeated contacts as mere personal friendship unrelated to the crime," and judged that "acknowledging the connection to A naturally explains the circumstances." A appealed the second trial ruling, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating there was no problem with the second trial’s decision.