A joint prosecutors-police investigative team has been conducting search and seizure operations at the National Election Commission and other sites for more than five hours Thursday as part of its probe into the ballot shortage that disrupted the June 3 local elections.
The team seized ballot printing plans, meeting minutes, budget documents and election-related CDs from the Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission office in Jongno-gu, according to Yonhap News Agency.
Investigators are also conducting forensic analysis of files on computers belonging to senior officials — including regional election commission secretaries-general — and frontline staff, focusing on materials related to the June 3 local elections.
The searches, which began around 9 a.m. Thursday, targeted seven locations: the National Election Commission headquarters in Gwacheon, the Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission, and district election commissions in Songpa, Seocho, Gangnam, Gwangjin and Dongjak-gu, where ballot shortages were reported. Investigators are pursuing suspected violations of the Public Official Election Act, dereliction of duty, and embezzlement and breach of trust.
The operation involved three prosecutors, more than 10 prosecution investigators and approximately 100 police officers.
The search warrants named more than 10 suspects, including former National Election Commission Chairman Noh Tae-ak, former Secretary-General Heo Cheol-hun, and the chairs and secretaries-general of various regional election commissions.
Using the printing plans, meeting minutes and budget records seized Thursday, investigators are expected to examine whether the ballot shortage resulted from intentional misconduct or negligence on the part of the commission, and whether any funds were misappropriated.
The team will focus particularly on whether election commission employees used their positions to exert undue influence on the elections or obstructed electoral freedom through deception — potential violations of the Public Official Election Act.
However, proving such charges under the act requires establishing that the conduct was intentional.
"The core of Articles 85 and related provisions of the Public Official Election Act is proving that a public official deliberately interfered with electoral freedom through improper means for political purposes," a lawyer specializing in election law said. "If it is shown that some members intentionally intervened in the administration of the election, criminal punishment is possible."
husn7@heraldcorp.com
