Punishment for Redevelopment Association Head Candidate Involved in 'Bribery'... Constitutional Court: "Fairness and Integrity Must Be Ensured"

Constitutional Court Rules 'Constitutionality' of Punishment Clause for Bribery by Reconstruction Association Chair Candidates

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court, along with other constitutional justices, entered and took their seats in the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of the 27th of last month.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the legal provisions prohibiting candidates from receiving money or valuables during the election process of maintenance project association executives, and punishing violations thereof, do not violate the Constitution.

On the 1st, the Constitutional Court announced that it unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the provisions after hearing a constitutional complaint filed by Mr. A, who requested a review of the unconstitutionality of Article 21, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph 2 and Article 84-2, Subparagraph 3 of the former Urban Maintenance Act.

The provisions under review stipulate that anyone who, in relation to the election of a promotion committee member or association executive, receives or consents to the offer of money, entertainment, or other property benefits, or who provides or promises to provide such money or other property benefits, shall be punished by imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to 50 million won.

In 2015, Mr. A ran for the position of association president in an apartment reconstruction project and received 5 million won as election funds from the representative of a window construction company, along with a request to award the construction contract if elected.

The prosecution filed a summary indictment against Mr. A, and the court issued a summary order imposing a fine of 5 million won. However, Mr. A appealed the summary order, requested a formal trial, and during the first trial, filed a constitutional complaint claiming that the provisions of the Urban Maintenance Act were unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court stated, "Since the exercise of property rights by residents or landowners within the maintenance area is significantly affected, the fairness and integrity of the duties performed by association executives conducting maintenance projects must be guaranteed for the projects to proceed fairly and smoothly," adding, "If money or valuables are exchanged between construction companies and cooperating firms participating in the maintenance project and candidates for association executives, there is a risk of undue influence on the selection of cooperating firms or the increase of payment during the project process."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.