When it was revealed that Kim Eun-hye, a candidate for the People’s Strength, for Gyeonggi Governor’s property report was falsely omitted two days after the election, it was explained that it was a mistake or a simple mistake.
Gang Yong-seok, an independent Gyeonggi governor candidate who discovered this problem and raised an objection, raised his voice saying that even if he is elected, the election will be invalidated and that Kim must be voted for to resign. The Democratic Party also called for his resignation as a criminal act.
According to past comparable precedents regarding the degree of illegality in the false report of candidate Kim’s property, former United Progressive Party lawmaker Kim Mi-hee, who was charged with omission of a property report of 9.9 million won and publicly false information under the Public Official Election Act, was found guilty in the first trial on the charge (a fine). He was acquitted at the second trial and the Supreme Court (guilty on other charges, fine of 800,000 won). Although the claims of practitioners’ mistakes are similar to each other, attention is paid to how the investigation will be conducted in the future as there is a big difference in the amount of omissions.
On the 30th, the National Election Commission announced that 1.617 billion won was omitted from the property report of Gyeonggi Governor Kim Eun-hye. In the ‘Decision Matters’ announced on the same day, the National Election Commission said, “The value of ‘Building-Spouse-Building’ in Candidate Eun-Hye Kim’s property report underreported 1.49,408,800 won, which is not consistent with the facts.” Among the reported items, the value of the spouse’s building should be listed as 1,73,61,943 won, but 15,867,855,000 won, so the value of the building was underreported by 1,49,408,800 won,” he pointed out. The National Election Commission also said that candidate Kim’s securities details were also underreported by 123.69 million won and did not match the facts. We underreported 12.369 million won,” he said.
In addition, it was judged that it was also inconsistent with the fact that candidate Kim said at an election broadcast debate on the 23rd that the share of his spouse’s building was ‘not a quarter, but an eighth’. The National Election Commission pointed out, “At the election broadcasting debate, the spouse’s share in the building was stated differently from what was written on the property report of candidates for public office (2/8).”
In response, Candidate Eun-hye Kim is explaining that it was the practitioner’s fault or a simple mistake. In a written opinion submitted to the National Election Commission, candidate Kim said, “After the election of the 20th National Assembly member, the property report was registered at 15,867,855,000 won.” It was the self-assessment amount (local tax standard amount applied). Candidate Kim said, “I understood that the real estate information was automatically updated when the person in charge submitted the ‘consent to provide financial transaction and real estate information’ to the public service ethics system, and the content of the property report is maintained even when registering the property of a member of the National Assembly. The value has not changed since the initial registration, so the person in charge reported the property with the same content.”
Regarding his omission of reporting on his securities account, candidate Kim said, “The missing Mirae Asset Securities and KB Securities trust accounts are owned by the candidate’s spouse and tangible consent. method of investment. He argued that it is difficult for the spouse of the candidate to be aware of activities such as the purchase of Brazilian government bonds by the securities company through the CMA account.” Candidate Kim said, “If you submit the ‘Consent to provide financial transaction and real estate information’, the financial information is automatically updated, but the content is not automatically updated, so candidates and practitioners were not aware at all.” They are managing it, and from the perspective of the candidate, they were not aware of it at all because they were managing it at their in-laws and did not inform them of the relevant details.”
Candidate Kim explained in the written opinion that it was a mistake caused by a simple error of speaking while not fully acquainted with the details of the candidate’s spouse’s property.
Even if the opposition party calls for an investigation and is elected as a result, attention is focused on whether the election will be invalidated if the prosecution indicts it. In the precedent, there was a case in which the first trial was convicted of invalidation of election, and in the second trial, the acquittal was acquitted.
Kim Mi-hee, a former member of the United Progressive Party, was indicted on charges of publicizing false facts under the Public Official Election Act by omitting a 9.9 million won stake in real estate in her hometown of Mokpo in the property report. On December 27, 2012, Seongnam Jiwon of the Suwon District Court found her guilty of publishing false information and violating the ban on the same day election campaign in the case of former lawmaker Kim Mi-hee, and sentenced her to a fine of 2.5 million won. However, the appeals court, which came out after four months, overturned her acquittal in the false statement part. On April 19, 2013, the 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Yoon Seong-won) sentenced former Rep. Kim to a fine of 800,000 won in the appeals trial. The false statement of fact (reporting false property) was regarded as not guilty. Afterwards, on July 24, 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed all appeals and a fine of 800,000 won was finalized, allowing Kim to maintain his office.
According to the verdicts of the first and second trials obtained by Media Today on the 31st, it depended on whether they acknowledged ‘intentional’. In the first instance court, the Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court said, “It cannot be said that the accused was not involved in the process of falsely announcing the property relationship or that he did not review the contents, and even if he misunderstood that real estate less than 10 million won was excluded from reporting, In light of the fact that such property details and property tax payment records were submitted in the election, it is difficult to see that there is any justifiable reason for the misunderstanding.” The court of first instance held that △the omission of property was acknowledged only after another candidate objected △the fact that the fact of not possessing property under the guise of popular politics affected the image building △the fact that the constituency was a close match It was a false statement,” he judged.
In contrast, the 7th Criminal Division of the Seoul High Court, which is the court of appeal, judged the exact opposite in the judgment. The court of appeals judged that “all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to admit that she was aware that Mi-hee Kim had reported false property or that she was intentionally presenting false information for the purpose of being elected.” The court said, “The defendant (Kim Mi-hee) delegated the task of filling out and submitting the registration documents for his election candidates to the election secretary, and the secretary heard the reply from the local election commission that said that if the property for each item is less than 10 million won, it is not subject to report. It seems that he did not report the real estate stake because the value of his real estate stake was less than 10 million won because it was mistaken for being included in the There is no data or circumstance to suggest that he would gain an advantageous position in the National Assembly elections by omitting the .
The appellate court also said, “There is no direct evidence to admit that the defendant Kim Mi-hee was involved in the document preparation process or that the contents were reviewed.” I asked if it could be corrected, but when I heard that it was not possible, I clarified this content at the broadcast candidate discussion held on the same day and made efforts such as correcting the facts through Internet comments, Facebook, and the homepage, so that the property that was missing before the election day was returned to the electors. informed,” he judged. Accordingly, the court ruled that the false statement of fact (omission of property report) was not guilty.
However, it seems that the key is how to view the claim that it is 160 times different from Candidate Eun-hye Kim’s missing report, and that he mistakenly omitted the part that did not confirm that his fortune had increased after he was elected as a member of the National Assembly.
On the other hand, the opposition party poured out criticism, demanding that he resign immediately and be investigated. Park Ji-hyeon, chairman of the Democratic Party’s joint emergency countermeasures committee, said at a meeting of the National Election Committee on the morning of the 31st, “I wrote down my fortune by 1.6 billion won, but I did not know how to properly calculate my own property, which is 24.1 billion won, and I decided to manage the 33 trillion won budget in Gyeonggi Province.” “Even if you are elected, do not dwell on elections that will be invalid, and just quietly step down,” he urged.
Ho-jung Yun, co-chairman of the same party, also said, “Fake property reporting of a candidate for public office is a felony that is equivalent to invalidating the election. crime,” he criticized. “A crime can never be a mistake no matter how much you make excuses for it,” said Yoon Bi, chairman of the committee. Park Hong-geun, floor leader, also said, “As the Election Commission has decided that the facts do not match, an investigation into allegations of violation of the Public Official Election Act is inevitable.” urged
Gang Yong-seok, an independent Gyeonggi governor candidate, also said, “The reason why the National Election Commission immediately acknowledged that even though it is an issue that will affect the election results, is that the extent of Candidate Eun-hye’s property reduction is that serious.” , stocks and tenement houses (luxury villas) were also reduced, and on May 23rd, he lied because it was one in eight,” he criticized. Candidate Kang emphasized, “There is no way that Candidate Eun-hye Kim will be elected, but even if she is elected, the election will be nullified.”