The Constitutional Court ruled constitutional a provision of the Public Official Election Act that voids an election if a conviction is finalized for a crime committed by a campaign chief before the appointment.
On the 21st, the court dismissed a constitutional review petition filed by former Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker Shin Young-dae (Gunsan, Gimje, and Buan A, North Jeolla) against parts of Article 265 of the Public Official Election Act, in a 6-3 decision to dismiss.
Kang, a person surnamed Kang who previously served as chief of Shin's campaign office, was indicted for violating the Public Official Election Act for distorting a poll during the Democratic Party of Korea's primary process for a run in the 22nd general election. In January, the Supreme Court finalized a sentence of one year in prison, suspended for two years, for Kang. Under election law, if a campaign chief receives a finalized sentence of imprisonment or heavier for an election crime, the candidate's election is void. Accordingly, Shin lost the parliamentary seat.
Before Kang was officially appointed as Shin's campaign chief, at the end of 2023, Kang gave 15 million won and 100 mobile phones to a primary campaign associate to have respondents state support for Shin in a poll.
Shin argued that Kang's offense occurred before the appointment as campaign chief and was carried out without informing Shin, so Shin had no knowledge of it. Shin then filed a constitutional complaint, claiming Article 265 of the election law infringed the right to hold public office.
The court found that even acts committed before appointment and filing as campaign chief are aimed at helping the candidate win and are hard to view as entirely unrelated, independent acts. The rationale is that, to assemble a vast campaign apparatus within a limited period, it is common for the person to be appointed as campaign chief and the candidate to confer in advance on campaign strategy.
Justices Kim Sang-hwan, Ma Eun-hyeok, and Oh Young-jun dissented. They said, "The standard should be whether, at the time a third party committed the election crime, the person had been given a status and role tantamount to that of a campaign chief and was executing campaign duties," adding, "The current law imposes joint liability on the candidate across the board."