Oh Se-hoon Fined 10 Million Won in 1st Trial for Political Fund Act Violation: Why His Mayorship Is at Risk

A fine of 10 million won. Why is this figure so critical? While Seoul Mayor Oh Se-hoon does not lose his mayoral seat immediately, his position will be automatically revoked the moment this judgment is upheld by the Supreme Court. Facing charges of receiving public opinion poll results from political broker Myung Tae-kyun ahead of the 2021 Seoul mayoral by-election and having a supporter pay the 33 million won cost on his behalf, the court found him guilty in five cases totaling 21 million won. Mayor Oh announced plans to appeal, stating that "the guilty verdict was delivered based solely on the testimony of Myung Tae-kyun, an ultimate liar," but the court condemned him, noting that he led the crime despite well understanding the law as a former National Assembly member and mayor.

1. "Why Do Polls Become Illegal?" The Core Issue Is the 'Flow of Money'

The essence of the case is not the opinion polls themselves. The key issue is who paid for them. The court determined that Mayor Oh, along with Kang Chul-won, former vice mayor and his chief of staff at the time, met Myung on January 20, 2021, to commission the opinion polls. At that time, Mayor Oh was trailing candidate Na Kyung-won in the People Power Party primary. The court concluded that "he commissioned the polls from Myung to overcome an unfavorable primary situation." Businessman Kim Han-jung, a longtime supporter of Mayor Oh, sent money directly to Myung: 10 million won on February 1, 2021, followed by additional wire transfers. The court ruled that these funds were not a simple gesture of goodwill, but a third-party payment for opinion poll expenses.

2. Why Does the Law View 'Covered Expenses' as Illegal?

South Korea's Political Fund Act defines political funds very broadly. Even if money does not enter the candidate's personal account, a third party covering expenses for political activities is considered a contribution. Under the intent of the Political Fund Act, third parties covering costs incurred during political activities or providing financial benefits are explicitly regulated. In other words, even if a candidate does not receive money directly, if someone covers expenses on their behalf, that in itself constitutes illegal political funds.

The U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) takes a similar stance. Providing opinion poll results free of charge is viewed as an in-kind contribution. The UK Electoral Commission also requires services provided to candidates for free or at a discount to be valued at commercial rates and reported. Under international comparative law, this logic is widespread.

3. "Based Solely on Myung Tae-kyun's Testimony?" Indirect Evidence Seen by the Court

Mayor Oh claimed there was "no direct evidence," but the court saw it differently. What caught the court's attention was the timing and behavioral patterns. The Future Korea Research Institute, operated by Myung, had suspended operations due to a lack of funds, but suddenly resumed work right after Mayor Oh met with Myung, conducting polls on Seoul mayoral candidates. Furthermore, the court determined that "when poll results turned out unfavorable to Mayor Oh, his side protested and delayed the public release until February 15." The intention was to delay the release as much as possible to minimize any negative impact. The court concluded that if Mayor Oh had not commissioned the poll, there would have been no reason to delay its publication. In short, the actions themselves served as circumstantial proof of who requested the polls.

4. Why Guilty on Only 5 Out of 10 Cases? Where the Court Drew the Line

The special counsel regarded all 10 opinion polls (3 public, 7 non-public) and the entire 33 million won in expenses as violations of the Political Fund Act, but the court recognized only 5 cases totaling 21 million won as guilty. Why? The court determined that "it is difficult to conclusively establish that Mayor Oh commissioned the remaining 5 cases." In other words, the possibility that Myung provided them unilaterally could not be ruled out. This distinction is significant.

Although arising from cases related to Myung Tae-kyun, First Lady Kim Keon-hee's first and second trial courts ruled that "polls provided unilaterally by Myung do not constitute illegal political funds," acquitting her. Conversely, the first-instance court for former President Yoon Suk Yeol held that "an implicit agreement alone is sufficient to constitute illegality." The first-instance ruling in Mayor Oh's case sits in the middle: it found guilty only those surveys where explicit requests or implicit agreements could be established.

5. A 10 Million Won Fine: Why Is This Figure Fatal?

A fine of 1 million won. This threshold determines Mayor Oh's fate. The Public Official Election Act stipulates that if a sentence of a fine of 1 million won or more for violating the Political Fund Act is finalized, the election is invalidated. Incumbent public officials automatically lose their positions. Having been sentenced to a fine of 10 million won, Mayor Oh will be stripped of his mayorship if this sentence is finalized by the Supreme Court.

However, timing is key here. This case is subject to the expedited trial provisions of the Kim Keon-hee Special Prosecutor Act. A verdict must be delivered within six months for the first trial, and within three months each for the second and third trials. That means a final Supreme Court ruling is likely to be handed down as early as around January 2027. Mayor Oh will maintain his position until then, but he must navigate his political career while carrying significant judicial risk.

6. "Aren't Opinion Polls Just Information?" What Academia Says

Opinion polls are not merely reference materials. According to a study by Tenpas & McCann (2007) published in the academic journal Public Opinion Quarterly ("Testing the permanence of the permanent campaign: An analysis of presidential polling expenditures, 1977–2002"), internal polling expenditures by U.S. presidents tended to surge as re-election campaigns intensified. Polling is a key area of investment for political decision-making and campaign strategy.

In short, internal polling is a high-value strategic asset used for resource allocation, message testing, and assessing competitive dynamics. This is why the U.S. FEC treats polling results as clear in-kind contributions. South Korean courts follow the same logic: polling is a service possessing economic value and strategic utility, and receiving it free of charge constitutes illegal political funds.

7. International Comparison: How Do Other Countries View This?

Is South Korea uniquely strict? No. The U.S. FEC classifies third-party services like polling as in-kind contributions, while the UK Electoral Commission requires services provided to candidates for free to be valued at commercial rates and reported. Elections Canada also explains that survey or research data received during an election period constitutes an electoral expense.

Thus, South Korea's logic that "third-party payment of polling expenses equals illegal political funds" is not an unusual technicality, but a universal principle that election data and services hold market value, and receiving them indirectly must be accounted for.

8. How the OECD Views South Korea's Political Finance System: "Regulations Exist, but Practice Is Weak"

Is South Korea's system inherently weak? The OECD Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026 report on South Korea assesses it as follows: South Korea meets 70% in terms of political finance regulations, but scores only 43% in implementation (practice), falling below the OECD averages of 76% and 58%, respectively. In particular, the report points out limitations in the public disclosure of detailed financial reports and in the transparency of audits, investigations, and sanctions.

In short, while South Korea has the legal framework, it lacks detailed practical disclosure and rigorous oversight. This case serves as an example revealing that vulnerability. By combining non-public polls, intermediaries, and third-party payments by supporters, a gray area emerged where cost attribution and lines of accountability were blurred. The OECD notes that risks in political finance arise primarily from undue influence rather than direct bribery—which is precisely the structure seen in this case.

9. Why Does Oh Se-hoon Say He "Cannot Accept" the Ruling?

This is Mayor Oh's counterargument. Immediately after the sentencing, he stated: "The ruling was delivered based on inferences in a state where there is absolutely no direct evidence, relying solely on indirect evidence and the testimony of Myung Tae-kyun, an ultimate liar." Mayor Oh maintains that he never commissioned polls from Myung, never received results directly, and was unaware that Kim had paid money to Myung.

Supporter Kim also testified that "the money given to Myung was meant to put Mayor Oh in good favor with Myung, who was known to be close to former President Yoon Suk Yeol," and was not meant to pay for polling expenses. However, the court rejected this argument. The court stated that "since Kim did not appear to know Myung or former Vice Mayor Kang at all beforehand, there would have been no reason to send money to Myung without a request from Mayor Oh." In other words, common-sense inference worked against Mayor Oh.

10. Key Points to Watch in the Appellate Trial: Will 5 Cases Stand or Drop to 0?

What could change in the appellate trial?

First is how many of the five cases will remain guilty. The five cases recognized by the court were also based on circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence. If these circumstances are overturned on appeal, the number of guilty findings could be reduced.

Second is the standard for implicit agreement. While the first trial for former President Yoon Suk Yeol held that "an implicit agreement alone constitutes illegality," First Lady Kim Keon-hee's first and second trials concluded that "unilateral provision is not illegal." The outcome could differ depending on which logic Mayor Oh's appellate court adopts.

Third is the purpose of Kim Han-jung's wire transfer. The key lies in how persuasive Kim's testimony is that he "paid the money to help Myung."

Fourth is the significance of the publication delay. The court viewed "delaying publication as evidence of being the requester," but Mayor Oh's side could counter that it was "simple coordination."

Ultimately, the key question is whether this circumstantial evidence will hold up in the appellate court. Until a final verdict is reached, Mayor Oh's mayoral position remains in a state of "conditional retention."


Deep Dive Q&A
Q1. Why does a violation of the Political Fund Act occur even if a candidate does not receive money directly?

A1. South Korea's Political Fund Act and international standards (such as the U.S. FEC and the UK Electoral Commission) classify third-party payment of expenses incurred during political activities as "in-kind contributions" or illegal political funds. Because strategic data such as opinion polls are services with clear economic and strategic value, third-party payment itself is subject to legal penalty.

Q2. What happens to Mayor Oh Se-hoon's position if this ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court?

A2. Under the Public Official Election Act and the Political Fund Act, if an elected official receives a finalized sentence of a fine of 1 million won or more for violating the Political Fund Act, their election is invalidated, and they automatically lose their mayoral post. If the 10 million won fine handed down in the first trial is upheld by the Supreme Court, he will lose his mayorship and have his eligibility to run for office restricted for a set period.

Q3. What will be the key legal issues in the upcoming appellate trial?

A3. The biggest issues will be the reliability of the "circumstantial evidence" accepted in the absence of direct evidence, and how far an "implicit agreement" to commission opinion polls can be recognized as illegal. Furthermore, the outcome may vary depending on how the court interprets the actual purpose and nature of the money wired by supporter Kim Han-jung to Myung Tae-kyun.
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.