Lee Byungjin Loses Parliamentary Seat as Supreme Court Upholds Election Nullification for Omitted Asset Disclosure

7 Million Won Fine for Election Law Violation in First Trial,
5 Million Won Fine for Real Estate Registration Act Violation

Lee Byungjin, a member of the Democratic Party of Korea, who was put on trial for allegedly omitting part of his asset disclosures during the 22nd National Assembly election, has lost his parliamentary seat after the Supreme Court finalized a ruling that voids his election.

Lee Byungjin, Democratic Party of Korea. Photo by Yonhap News

On January 8, the First Division of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Shin Sookhee, upheld the lower court's ruling on Lee, who was charged with violating the Public Official Election Act and the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Lawmakers lose their seats if they are sentenced to imprisonment or higher, or if they are fined 1 million won or more for violating the Public Official Election Act.

Lee was indicted without detention for failing to report, to the National Election Commission, certain items during the April 2024 general election, including the establishment of a mortgage on land in Sinbong-ri, Yeongin-myeon, Asan-si, his stock holdings, and loans related to stocks.

In the first trial, Lee was fined 7 million won for violating election law and 5 million won for violating the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. The appellate court maintained the original verdict, stating, "Stocks held in accounts under borrowed names cannot be identified unless voluntarily reported, which makes the offense highly blameworthy."

Lee appealed, arguing, "Stocks held in accounts under someone else's name are not mine," but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the previous judgment. The Supreme Court stated, "There was no misunderstanding of the law regarding union property, the admissibility of evidence from finalized criminal records in other cases, or the legal principles concerning 'assets actually owned' under Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Public Officials Ethics Act, that would have affected the ruling."