Korean Constitutional Court Upholds Korean Election Law Restrictions on Voting and Political Campaigning by Religious Organizations

On October 23, 2025, the Constitutional Court of Korea delivered an important ruling in Case No. 2024Hun-Ba450, upholding key provisions of the Korean Public Official Election Act (“POEA”) that restrict voting rights and prohibit religiously affiliated campaigning for or against a political candidate or political party.

The decision by the Constitutional Court of Korea arose from a constitutional petition filed by Pastor Gwang-hoon JEON of Sarang Jeil Church, who argued that the provisions of the law violated his rights under the Korean Constitution, including his religious liberties and political rights.

Background of the Case

1. Pastor JEON was convicted in August 2018 of violating the Public Official Election Act of Korea. He received a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years (i.e., no jail time), under Article 18(1)3 of the Act, and was barred from voting or running for office for ten years after the conviction.
2. Pastor JEON was fined KRW 2 million in October 2024 for campaigning for a specific presidential candidate through sermons delivered in November 2021.
3. Pastor JEON challenged the constitutionality of several POEA provisions, including:
   • Article 18(1)3 – Restriction of voting rights for those with suspended sentences for election crimes;
   • Article 85(3) – Prohibition on electioneering using one’s official capacity within a religious organization; and
   • Article 254(2) – Ban on pre-election campaigning.

Korean Constitutional Court’s Ruling

A. Voting Rights Restriction (Article 18(1)3) – Upheld (5-4 Majority)

The Constitutional Court of Korea held that limiting the voting rights of individuals convicted of election crimes serves a legitimate purpose — protecting electoral integrity. Referring to its earlier decision (2015Hun-Ma821), the majority of 5 reasoned that a ten-year restriction was not excessively long and constituted an “effective deterrent against election fraud.”

Four justices dissented, including Chief Justice Sang-hwan KIM, who criticized the uniform ten-year ban as overly broad:

“Despite the varying levels of culpability among offenders, imposing a blanket ten-year restriction violates the principle of proportionality. Combined with bans on candidacy and campaigning, it effectively excludes individuals from the exercise of fundamental political rights.”

The narrow 5-4 split highlights the Court’s ongoing tension between protecting individual political rights and maintaining public confidence in Korea’s electoral system.

B. Ban on Religious-Office Campaigning (Article 85(3)) – Upheld (Unanimously)

The Court unanimously found that religious leaders may not use their official positions to campaign for or against political candidates. Citing 2021Hun-Ba233, it held that the language “using official duties” is sufficiently clear and does not violate the principle of legality.

The ruling emphasized that religious influence can distort political neutrality:

“If a religious organization employs its official status to support candidates, it risks shaping distorted political opinions. Preventing the harmful fusion of politics and religion outweighs the limitation on individual expression.”

C. Ban on Pre-Election Campaigning (Article 254(2)) – Upheld (Unanimously)

The Court unanimously upheld the prohibition on pre-election campaigning, which aims to prevent social disorder and unfair competition before the official campaign period.

The Court noted that not all political activity is banned, such as private meetings or policy discussions, remain permitted, but the regulation ensures “substantive equality of opportunity among candidates.”

Written by the attorneys of IPG Legal, a leading international law firm, handling complex litigation, regulatory, and cross-border matters throughout Korea, North America, and Asia.