Violation of the Public Official Election Act

An act of violating the Public Official Election Act and receiving sanctions such as criminal punishment or invalidation of election, governing the types of election crimes and the standards for their

Violation of the Public Official Election Act

Overview

A violation of the Public Official Election Act (공직선거법) refers to an act that breaches the prohibitory and mandatory provisions concerning election order set out in the Act. The Act was established to secure the fairness of public elections, including those for the presidency, the National Assembly, heads of local governments, and local council members; violations are met with strong sanctions such as criminal punishment along with invalidation of election and restrictions on the right of defeated candidates to run again. Unlike ordinary criminal offenses, election crimes have the public interest of electoral fairness as their protected legal interest, so there are many cases in which the procedural violation itself is at issue rather than the degree of intent or the severity of the consequences.

Main Content

Legal Basis and Character

The Public Official Election Act was enacted in 1994 by consolidating the existing Presidential Election Act, National Assembly Election Act, and Local Council Members Election Act, among others. It has since undergone numerous amendments to reach its present form. The Act comprehensively regulates campaign methods and periods, election expenses, candidate registration, voting and vote-counting procedures, and the public management system for elections, and it imposes both criminal penalties and administrative sanctions for violations.

Major Types of Violations

Bribery and inducement of interests: Providing money, food, or entertainment; demanding money; soliciting the fulfillment of campaign pledges, etc. (Articles 230–233). This is typically the most heavily punished category.
Illegal election campaigning: Violations of campaign periods and methods, campaigning before the official period, illegal opinion polls, publication of false facts, slander and smear tactics, etc.
Election expense-related violations: Falsifying accounting reports, overspending on election expenses, illegally receiving political funds.
Involvement of public officials and organizations in elections: Public officials using their position to intervene in elections, violations of the prohibition on election campaigning by organizations and facilities.
Violations of voting and vote-counting procedures: Disturbing polling stations, damaging ballots, fraudulent vote counting, obstructing poll watchers, etc.
Dissemination of false or fabricated information: Spreading false facts via SNS, YouTube, etc., and false information using AI-generated synthetic content.

Penalties and Sanctions

The typical offense of giving or receiving money or goods is punishable by imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 50 million won, and in some cases a fine of 100 million won or more may be imposed. In addition, if a person receives a final and conclusive sentence of imprisonment or a fine of at least 1 million won for certain election crimes, the election is invalidated and the right to be elected is restricted for 5 years. The so-called "election-invalidation threshold" functions as a key mechanism for deterring election crimes. Election crimes have a short statute of limitations of 6 months (3 years for some crimes), and as prosecution must often be initiated within 6 months of election day, swift investigation is required.

Characteristics of Election Crimes

Election crimes are often carried out in an organized and covert manner, and there are not a few cases in which conflicting statements among interested parties make them difficult to prove. For this reason, the prosecution, the police, and the National Election Commission work together to crack down on them, and the Election Commission holds the authority to investigate and file complaints regarding violations. Election crimes also attract intense public attention, so a guilty verdict carries significant political repercussions, and the determination of guilt or innocence at trial tends to draw public scrutiny.

Latest Trends

In 2024–2025, as election campaigning using SNS, short-form platforms, and generative AI spread, the regulation of the dissemination of false information and deepfake synthetic content emerged as a major issue. Around the 2024 general election, cases of spreading false election information using AI-generated images and videos became a problem, and discussions proceeded in the direction of strengthening the relevant punishment provisions. In addition, calls have been steadily raised for improving the transparency of election expense accounting, strengthening sentencing for political fund crimes, and extending the statute of limitations for election crimes. In the National Assembly, voices demanding both deregulation of campaigning and stronger punishment coexist, and there is an ongoing pattern of unconstitutional provisions being amended in accordance with Constitutional Court decisions. From the voter's perspective, verifying candidate information and responding to fake news are emerging as important tasks.