공직선거법 제232조 제1항 제2호(소위 사후매수죄)의 위헌성 검토

The unconstitutionality of the "Item 2, Clause 1 of Article 232" of the Public Post Election Act

Obviously, The law should be clear, it should be strict in the legal interpretation of criminal rules, and any analogical or extensive interpretation should not be allowed. The "Item 2, Clause 1 of Article 232" of the Public Post Election Act prohibits candidates from several actions including giving money to an ex-candidate in consideration of his/her resignation from candidacy. The prohibited action is expected to be exercised after the resignation, so the meaning of "as consideration" is the clue to punishability in case when a pre-resignation bargain had not existed. The legal meanings of it so far turned out mostly to be a prise or a wage which means a benefit in return in a contract. And it could mean a benefit occurring from providing one's property or service. However, the provision has so many deficits as to be held unconstitutional. Apparently, it can be read to punish any transaction of benefits or interests to the resigned candidate, irrespective of the reason of the resignation. But if the transaction had no influence on the process and/or the result of the election, that cannot be punished, because it is not an abuse of the benefit and protection of the Public Official Election Act. Moreover, such reading should be unconstitutional, because it constitutes over-regulation of citizen' electoral rights as well as their rights to transaction. Sometimes, the reading could let the prosecutors intervene the electoral process and remarkable influence its result, and seems to have a political intent. In my opinion, although the late, the Constitutional Court should declare the Public Official Election Act unconstitutional and order the government to revise the provision to be clearly.