Legal Consequences of Election Lies: A Double Standard?

by Cho Hae soo Posted : November 4, 2026, 15:16Updated : November 4, 2026, 15:16

Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months in prison, suspended for 3 years, for violating election laws by publishing false information. If the Supreme Court upholds this disqualification sentence, the People Power Party will have to refund approximately 39.7 billion won in election costs and deposits received during the 2022 presidential election. This underscores the serious legal repercussions of a presidential candidate's lies.


Lee Jae-myung, the current president, has also been indicted on similar charges. The Supreme Court overturned a lower court's not guilty ruling from May of last year, sending the case back for further proceedings. However, the trial has been paused since he took office. If a disqualification sentence is confirmed, the Democratic Party could face a refund of around 43.4 billion won in election costs.


In this context, the Democratic Party is attempting to abolish the crime of publishing false information. Representative Park Hee-soon proposed a bill to eliminate the offense of publishing false information and defamation against candidates in November 2024. Additionally, a revision to raise the disqualification fine from 1 million to 10 million won was introduced on the day before and the day of the first trial ruling in Lee's election law violation case.


Last May, the Democratic Party also sought to amend the criteria for the crime of publishing false information by removing the term 'act' from its definition, just 13 days after the Supreme Court sent Lee's case back for retrial. Criticism arose even from within the progressive camp. In September, Cho Kuk, head of the Innovation Policy Research Institute, argued that if the bill passes, both Yoon and Lee could receive dismissals. He added that both major parties would escape the burden of refunding hundreds of millions in election costs. Cho specifically warned against selective application of the law, stating, 'If Lee is dismissed and Yoon is punished, such an election law amendment is neither possible nor right,' and criticized those who claim to be 'progressive' for undermining democracy.


The Democratic Party contends that even if the crime of publishing false information is abolished, it can still be prosecuted under criminal law. However, while defamation laws protect individual reputations, the election law's false information publication offense safeguards electoral fairness and voters' ability to make informed decisions. The argument that independent election crime provisions can be eliminated simply because some actions can be punished under other laws is a self-serving rationale.


Notably, the Constitutional Court ruled in June 2024 that the provision regarding the crime of publishing false information about candidates is constitutional, while deeming parts of the defamation law unconstitutional for infringing on freedom of expression. This distinction separates false information from political criticism.


Ironically, the government and ruling party have reacted hysterically to 'fake news.' On November 3, President Lee ordered a strong response to the dissemination of false information for political purposes, stating it causes social unrest. The ruling party is pushing for legislation to strengthen regulations on online misinformation and to penalize mockery and ridicule of the May 18 Democratic Uprising.


This raises the question: why is there a need to relax penalties for 'lies in elections,' which determine the direction of state power?


The controversy over 'laws for specific individuals' is recurring. The Democratic Party's proposed 'Special Prosecutor Law for Manipulated Indictments' targets 12 cases, eight of which are related to President Lee. While it removes the authority to dismiss existing cases, conflicts of interest surrounding trials involving the president remain. The government and ruling party must clarify whether the purpose of amending the law is to protect citizens' rights or to alleviate the criminal responsibility of specific individuals and the financial burdens on their parties.





* This article has been translated by AI.