1 Vote Difference Leads to Invalid Election, A Tragedy Caused by a Bowl of Frog Soup
In an election for the president of a certain sports association in Gyeonggi Province, A's election has been declared invalid due to a mere 1-vote difference.
The trouble originated from A treating a delegate to a bowl of frog soup worth 12,000 won the day before the election.
On the 14th, according to the judiciary, the 17th Civil Division of the Suwon District Court (Presiding Judge Maeng Jun-young) recently ruled against A in a lawsuit for confirmation of the election status against the Gyeonggi Province sports association.
A was elected president in the 7th presidential election of the Gyeonggi Province association held in November last year, where 15 out of the 19 eligible delegates participated, receiving 8 votes against the 7 votes obtained by rival candidate B.
However, the association's election management committee launched an investigation after receiving a report stating that "A provided money and favors to the delegates."
The election committee confirmed the report through statements from the informant, collection of relevant evidence, and by giving A an opportunity to explain, ultimately deciding to invalidate A's election.
Court, "Providing a meal the day before the election can be perceived as solicitation"
The investigation revealed that A had dined with delegate B at a frog soup restaurant the day before the election and confirmed that he paid the meal cost of 12,000 won.
A claimed, "This was just a courtesy for having received a 15,000 won bowl of pho from C previously" and argued that it was unrelated to the presidential election and did not violate social norms.
A also pointed out a procedural flaw, asserting that the election management committee could not initiate an investigation on their own after the announcement of the elected candidates.
However, the court did not accept A's claims, stating, "The provision of the meal occurred in a setting where only A and delegate B were present, and it was confirmed that A made a solicitation comment saying 'I trust you.'"
Regarding the claim that the meal was a return for the pho, the court ruled, "Considering the timing and circumstances of the provision, as well as what A requested from C at the time, it is difficult to conclude that it was purely a meal offering."
The court particularly emphasized that there were only 15 voters and that the vote difference was only 1 vote.
The court concluded that "Given that the election was conducted through secret ballot, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that C's vote had a decisive impact on A's election outcome."
Image source: Reference photo for understanding the article / gettyimagesbank
