Heavy Sentence for Malicious Slander vs. Judicialization of Politics: Legal Community Split over Yoon Seok-youl's Suspended Sentence for 'Announcing False Information'

Debate Intensifies Over the Public Official Election Act
"Reflects the Gravity of a Presidential Election"
"Sentencing Diverges from President Lee's Case"

The controversy surrounding former President Yoon Seok-youl’s suspended jail sentence in the first trial for violating the Public Official Election Act—specifically the offense of “making false statements”—is intensifying, especially in political circles. In the legal community, there are opposing views: some believe that “this is a significant verdict in an election climate rife with mudslinging and smear campaigns,” while others are concerned that “broad discretion given to the court could accelerate the judicialization of politics.”

On the 27th, the first trial sentencing hearing for former President Yoon Seok-youl, who was indicted on charges of spreading false information during his presidential campaign, was broadcast live from Seoul Station. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

The 21st Criminal Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Cho Soonpyo) on July 27 handed down a sentence of one year and six months in prison, suspended for three years, to former President Yoon, who was indicted for violating the Public Official Election Act. The problematic statements in question were, “I did not introduce attorney Lee Namseok to former Yongsan Tax Office chief Yoon Woojin,” and “I have never met shaman Geonjin together with First Lady Kim Keonhee.” The court determined that both assertions were false statements contrary to fact, finding them to constitute spreading false information and imposing a heavy sentence as a result.

The relevant legal provision is Article 250, Section 1 of the Public Official Election Act. This article stipulates that “anyone who publicly spreads false information about a candidate’s place of birth, family relationships, status, occupation, career, property, acts, etc. for the purpose of being elected shall be sentenced to imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to 30 million won.”

The legal community broadly agrees that the sentence handed down in this first trial was unusually harsh. An attorney with a background as a judge said, “Normally, when judges consider imposing a penalty severe enough to invalidate an election (a fine of at least 1 million won) for making false statements, they tend to impose fines ranging from 5 million to 10 million won. The fact that the court issued a suspended prison sentence means the first trial panel was convinced of Yoon’s guilt during the proceedings and intended to state this explicitly to the public.”

Attorney B commented, “It seems the decision was proportional to the scale and seriousness of the election,” and added, “Given the immense gravity and impact of a presidential election, it is hard to say the punishment is unconditionally heavy.”

Some point out that there is a lack of consistency in the court’s sentencing standards. Particularly among the opposition, there are claims that the sentencing is not balanced compared to the ruling in President Lee Jaemyung’s case. In President Lee’s case, on July 16, 2020, his statement that “I never tried to forcibly hospitalize my older brother” was found to be a false statement according to the law, but the Supreme Court Grand Bench overturned his conviction, ruling that he was not guilty. This verdict was finalized as an acquittal in the remanded trial in October of that year.

Former People Power Party lawmaker Kim Woong told The Asia Business Daily, “At the time, the court acquitted him, citing ‘guaranteeing the freedom of debate’ and the ‘possibility of spontaneous rebuttal,’” adding, “There is a disparity in sentencing standards for similar cases.” Attorney C also stated, “Taking public expectations into account, freedom of expression should be recognized more broadly, whether for candidates or voters,” and argued, “These matters should be resolved in the realm of politics or through civil action, rather than criminal punishment.”

The legal sector has also pointed out that the requirements for the crime of making false statements under the Public Official Election Act are excessively vague and left largely to judicial discretion. For this reason, the Democratic Party pushed last year to amend the law to remove “acts” as a subject of false statement allegations.

Attorney D, a former judge, commented, “Finding the balance between freedom of expression and penalizing false statements is a matter for legislation,” and noted, “If the scope of punishment is narrowed by amendment, the possibility of arbitrary court decisions would decrease, making outcomes more predictable.” In contrast, attorney E expressed concern, saying, “If ‘acts’ are excluded from the law, there will be a serious loophole where false statements about past behaviors or involvement in specific events cannot be penalized.”

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