“Should Be Seen as Critical Opinion Expression” Supreme Court Overturns and Remands Disqualification Sentence of Lee Hak-su, Jeongeup Mayor

Supreme Court: "Excessive Partial Expressions Cannot Be Considered as False Information Disclosure"

Lee Hak-su, the mayor of Jeongeup City, who was prosecuted for violating the Public Official Election Act by disseminating false information and was sentenced to disqualification from election in the first and second trials, has been vindicated by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court's (second trial) ruling that sentenced Mayor Lee to a fine of 10 million won. Mayor Lee avoided the risk of losing his mayoral position.

The Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Kim Sang-hwan) on the 31st overturned the second trial's ruling that sentenced Mayor Lee to a fine of 10 million won in the appeal trial for violating the Public Official Election Act and remanded the case to the Gwangju High Court. If an elected official is convicted of violating the Public Official Election Act and sentenced to a fine of 1 million won or more, the election is invalidated. However, the Supreme Court ruled that "the second trial's guilty judgment involved a legal error."

Mayor Lee was indicted for disseminating false information about his opponent during the June 1, 2022 local elections. In radio and TV debates, Mayor Lee raised suspicions of real estate speculation against Kim Min-young, an independent candidate and his opponent, stating, "When she served as the chairman of the Gujeolcho Festival Committee and the head of the Forestry Cooperative, she purchased a large plot of land measuring 167,000 square meters near Gujeolcho Park. There are scattered land grabs." At that time, Mayor Lee was investigated for distributing press releases and card news containing such content to many journalists and others. In response, candidate Kim filed a complaint with the prosecution, stating, "This is not true."

The first and second trial courts recognized all charges as guilty, stating, "The defendant raised baseless suspicions of real estate speculation close to the election," and sentenced him to a fine of 10 million won.

The Supreme Court's judgment was different. The Supreme Court held that statements made during the TV debate, radio debate, and the contents of the press release should be judged separately.

Regarding the TV debate statements, the court said, "The overall intent can be understood as implying suspicion that the opposing candidate is promoting the national garden elevation pledge for personal gain," and "expressions such as 'land grabbing' can be understood in the context of pointing out potential conflicts of interest or inappropriateness in the opposing candidate's national garden elevation pledge." The court also acquitted the card news and press release parts. The Supreme Court concluded, "The term 'speculation' in the press release is reasonably seen as expressing a critical stance toward the opponent's pledge or mayoral duties."

The Supreme Court especially ruled, "The problematic expressions overall constitute 'expressions of opinion,' and it is difficult to see the TV debate statements as having a unilateral intent to disseminate false information; therefore, the crime of disseminating false information cannot be established based on some expressions that are false or exaggerated."

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