[Reporter's Desk] Prosecution's Silence: Hesitation Ahead of the Election?

Prosecution Stalls on Election Law Case:
Is This 'Neutrality' or 'Complicity'?

The case of Kim Kiwoong, Governor of Seocheon County in South Chungcheong Province, who was reported for violating the Public Official Election Act, has effectively stalled at the prosecution stage.

It has been four months since the police completed their investigation and forwarded the case documents to the prosecution, yet the prosecution has not made any decision-neither indictment nor dismissal-so far.

At this point, it is difficult to dismiss this as a simple delay. This is why there is criticism of intentional neglect and selective dereliction of duty.

The South Chungcheong Election Commission filed a complaint against Governor Kim and two others last September on charges of pre-election campaigning and illegal donations.

The police concluded their investigation after ten months of questioning those involved and securing evidence, and then transferred the case to the prosecution. At this stage of the process, there is no reason for further delay.

Nevertheless, the prosecution, having received the case, remains silent. There is no explanation and no schedule. Only time continues to pass.

Governor Kim is accused of providing food to about 90 people, including public officials and civilians, at a restaurant operated by his spouse.

He is also accused of conspiring with public officials to repeatedly gather them privately, provide them with alcohol and food, and have them watch promotional videos about his achievements.

Considering the hierarchical relationship between the head of a local government and public officials, whether this constitutes a violation of the Public Official Election Act is by no means a trivial matter.

Yet, the prosecution has effectively put the case in a 'cabinet,' deferring judgment. This lack of action ultimately serves as the most advantageous delay for the suspect.

With next year's election approaching, the prosecution is essentially sealing away key information that voters need to make informed decisions.

Cases involving the Public Official Election Act are different from ordinary criminal cases. Swift handling is the intent of the law.

Especially when an incumbent head of a local government is involved, this principle must be applied even more strictly.

While the prosecution fails to reach a conclusion, the individual in question can continue their political activities without any legal burden.

This silence from the prosecution effectively acts as a 'political exoneration.' The prosecution claims neutrality.

However, silence is not neutrality. Choosing to do nothing is still a clear choice, and the responsibility for its consequences lies squarely with the prosecution.

With next year's local elections ahead, voters need to know not only the candidates' policies but also whether they bear legal and moral responsibility.

However, the moment the prosecution withholds the case and delays its conclusion, the fairness of the election is seriously undermined.

This is not a simple administrative delay. It is a challenge to the fundamental principles of democracy. The prosecution no longer has the right to stall for time.

If there is no evidence of wrongdoing, the prosecution should issue a non-indictment. If there are grounds for illegality, it should clearly decide whether to indict. Doing nothing for more than four months, as is the case now, is an act of denying its own responsibility as a law enforcement agency.

Is the prosecution an institution for enforcing the law, or is it an institution for adjusting the clock of elections?