Investigation of Police Officer Who Missed Statute of Limitations in Gwangju Superintendent of Education Case

A police officer who investigated the allegations of Lee Jeong-seon, Gwangju Superintendent of Education, engaging in pre-election campaigning is under an internal investigation for missing the statute of limitations.

The Gwangju Police Agency announced on the 10th that it has launched an internal investigation regarding Officer A's negligence in duty.

Officer A was in charge of the case involving the Superintendent's violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act (pre-election campaigning) and the Personal Information Protection Act.

However, the pre-election campaigning charge was closed with a "no prosecution" disposition after failing to complete the investigation within the statute of limitations by December 1 of last year.

The punishment provisions for pre-election campaigning under the Education Autonomy Act apply the Public Official Election Act, which also sets the statute of limitations at six months from the election date.

This case arose when a voter residing in Gyeongnam received a text message soliciting support from the Superintendent's side ahead of last year's nationwide simultaneous local elections.

The voter filed a complaint with the National Petition Portal requesting an investigation into how the mobile phone number, personal information of a Gyeongnam resident, was leaked to the candidate running for Gwangju Superintendent of Education.

The police applied charges of violating the Personal Information Protection Act along with the Education Autonomy Act based on evidence that the text message was sent before the official election campaign period.

The charge of violating the Personal Information Protection Act, for which the statute of limitations still remains, has been reassigned to another investigator and follow-up investigations are ongoing.

A police official stated, "It appears that the officer in charge at the time made a mistake in managing the investigation schedule because the charge of violating the Personal Information Protection Act, which has a relatively longer statute of limitations, was listed as the main charge."

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