The Kim Young-Ran Law Constitutional Petition Case: The Blade of Integrity or Excessive Legislation?

"Could one meal become illegal?" People were shocked when the Kim Young-ran Law first emerged.

Hello! Recently, I saw the Kim Young-ran Law being discussed again in the news. In fact, when this law was first implemented, I remember a gathering where everyone was seriously calculating the cost of the menu. "Wouldn’t this be a violation if we eat this?" This joking but serious conversation... The Kim Young-ran Law was not just an anti-bribery law, but a turning point that changed the public ethics culture in our society. But now it has even reached a constitutional petition? Today, let’s dive into the background of this law, the controversy, and the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

Table of Contents

What is the Kim Young-Ran Law? Background of the Constitutional Petition Key Issues and Major Arguments Constitutional Court’s Ruling Public Opinion and Social Reactions Future Tasks and System Improvements

What is the Kim Young-Ran Law?

The Kim Young-Ran Law, officially known as the "Act on Prohibition of Improper Solicitation and the Receipt of Money and Goods," was implemented in September 2016. This law, aimed at ensuring public officials' integrity and eradicating corruption, not only applies to government officials but also extends to teachers and journalists. The key component of the law is the '3·5·10 rule', which prohibits spending more than 30,000 KRW on meals, 50,000 KRW on gifts, and 100,000 KRW on congratulatory or condolence money. It shook Korean society's entire culture of entertaining, going beyond simply preventing bribery.

Background of the Constitutional Petition

Immediately after the law was implemented, strong opposition arose from sectors such as agriculture and the media. In industries where entertaining is seen as essential, the law was criticized as an excessive piece of legislation that disregarded reality. Specifically, media and farming associations filed a constitutional petition, arguing that it infringed upon the freedom to perform their profession and violated the constitution due to its vague and overly broad prohibitions.

Claimant	Reason for Constitutional Petition
Media Associations	Suppression of reporting activities, infringement on freedom of expression and press
Agricultural and Livestock Sector	Threat to livelihood due to decline in gifts related to weddings and funerals

Key Issues and Major Arguments

The argument that the Kim Young-Ran Law is unconstitutional revolves around several key issues, as summarized below.

• Infringement on occupational and press freedoms
• Excessive vagueness causing confusion for the public
• Potential for excessive criminal penalties

Constitutional Court’s Ruling

In July 2016, the Constitutional Court ruled that the law is constitutional. With a majority ruling of 8:1, the Court affirmed the legitimacy and necessity of the law. The Court stated that "Corruption is a serious social evil that threatens democracy and the market economy order, and the state's preventive measures against it are justifiable." However, it noted that some of the ambiguous expressions could be clarified through subsequent enforcement decrees and interpretations.

Public Opinion and Social Reactions

Although there was discomfort and confusion in the early stages of implementation, public awareness has shifted over time. Positive reactions emerged, seeing the law as a step toward a transparent and clean society. Especially, younger generations embraced the law as a symbol of a 'fair society.'

Reaction Entity	Main Response
Civic Groups	A milestone in restoring social trust, welcoming the constitutional ruling
Self-Employed	Initial financial impact due to decrease in meal and gift sales
Generation 2030	Support for the value of 'fairness' and enthusiasm for the law

Future Tasks and System Improvements

The Kim Young-Ran Law is still evolving. With amendments to enforcement decrees, reasonable adjustments are being made, and there is also an emphasis on the need for governance linked to various systems. Most importantly, it is crucial to refine the law in a way that reflects both its purpose and the practical realities.

• Specific clarification of excessively broad expressions
• Flexible standards reflecting the realities of each profession
• Maintaining a balance between corruption prevention and the protection of rights

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q Who is subject to the Kim Young-Ran Law?

Public officials, public institution employees, journalists, and private school teachers are included, especially those in positions with significant public influence.

Q What is the 3·5·10 rule?

It is a restriction on exceeding 30,000 KRW for meals, 50,000 KRW for gifts, and 100,000 KRW for congratulatory or condolence money.

Q Does the Kim Young-Ran Law apply to regular citizens?

While not directly applicable to regular citizens, offering gifts or money to public officials or journalists may result in violations.

Q What penalties will I face if I violate the law?

You may face a fine, and if the violation exceeds a certain amount, criminal penalties may apply. In some cases, administrative actions such as dismissal may also occur.

Conclusion: The Changing Landscape of Society through the Law

The Kim Young-Ran Law has been a social experiment and a cultural turning point. It made us reflect on how the practices we took for granted have created structural problems. Though there are still some trial and error, this law has rooted the value of 'transparency' in our society. I believe that this law will continue to evolve in communication with reality toward a better direction. How do you view the Kim Young-Ran Law? Share your thoughts in the comments!

WikiLeaks and the Legal Battle of Julian Assange: Between Exposé and Asylum, What Is the Price of Truth?

"Is revealing state secrets heroic or criminal?" The legal showdown between WikiLeaks and Assange that shocked the world — it's time to revisit it.

Hello. Do you remember the name Julian Assange, who frequently appeared in international news a while ago? Since 2010, he has been at the center of global controversy by releasing a vast amount of U.S. and international diplomatic and military secrets through the platform "WikiLeaks." Is he a hero or a criminal? The debate remains unresolved, and his legal fate continues to attract worldwide media attention. Today, I’d like to explore Assange's exposé activities and the resulting international legal disputes, focusing on the tension between freedom of expression and national security in the digital age.

Table of Contents

What Kind of Organization is WikiLeaks? Julian Assange's Leak Activities From Sexual Assault Allegations to Asylum U.S. Espionage Charges and Controversies Extradition Battle in the UK Where Are the Limits of Press Freedom?

What Kind of Organization is WikiLeaks?

WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization founded in 2006, aimed at safely disclosing confidential documents provided by whistleblowers. Founder Julian Assange declared that through this, he would realize global knowledge sharing by promoting 'freedom of information' and 'government transparency.'

Based on a system of anonymity guarantees and an international network, WikiLeaks served as a platform to expose sensitive information that media or governments found difficult to handle. Its major leaks included Iraq war logs, Afghan war secrets, and diplomatic cables, shocking global media and governments.

Julian Assange's Leak Activities

In 2010, Assange gained global attention by leaking about 500,000 U.S. military and diplomatic secrets. Among them, the video titled "Collateral Murder," showing a U.S. Apache helicopter killing civilians, was particularly shocking.

Time of Leak	Key Content	Impact
April 2010	"Collateral Murder" video	Sparked war crime allegations against the U.S. military
July–October 2010	Afghanistan and Iraq war logs	International criticism of U.S. foreign policy
November 2010	About 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables	Caused diplomatic friction between the U.S. and allies

From Sexual Assault Allegations to Asylum

Shortly after the leaks in 2010, Assange faced international arrest warrants over allegations of sexual assault and rape in Sweden. Assange claimed it was political retaliation and, in 2012, sought asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London — leading to the unprecedented situation of residing there for seven years.

• 2012: Entered Ecuadorian embassy just before arrest by British police
• 2019: Ecuador revoked asylum → Arrested by British police
• Present: Ongoing legal battle over extradition to the U.S.

U.S. Espionage Charges and Controversy

Assange was indicted by the U.S. government for violating the Espionage Act. This law, enacted in 1917, has primarily been applied to wartime espionage and leakers of classified information. The U.S. argues that Assange harmed national security by acquiring and disclosing classified documents in 2010.

• 17 out of 18 charges relate to violations of the Espionage Act
• Potential sentence of up to 175 years, drawing criticism from international human rights groups
• Rising concerns over press freedom violations and international alarm

Extradition Battle in the U.K.

Assange is currently imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison in the U.K., where legal proceedings regarding the U.S. extradition request are ongoing. In 2021, the lower court denied extradition citing mental health concerns, but a higher court later overturned the ruling and allowed extradition, intensifying the legal fight.

Year	Case Progress	Remarks
2019	Arrested at Ecuadorian Embassy	Detained by British police
2021	Lower court: Extradition denied	Due to mental health deterioration
2022–Present	Appeals court: Extradition approved	Final decision lies with the UK Home Secretary and Supreme Court

Freedom of the Press and the Limits of Expression

The Julian Assange case goes beyond a mere leak of classified documents—it's now a global debate about how to draw the line between press freedom and national security. There are also differing views on whether Assange is a journalist or a hacker.

• Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International oppose extradition
• The New York Times and The Washington Post support the principle of "protecting journalists"
• In the U.S., calls for stronger protection of classified information also persist
• This connects with freedom of expression issues in the AI and digital age

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q Is WikiLeaks still in operation?

Yes, WikiLeaks is still active and continues to provide access to past leaked materials. However, its operations have significantly shrunk since Assange’s imprisonment.

Q Is Julian Assange a journalist or a hacker?

Opinions are divided. Some see Assange as a journalist who mediated whistleblowers’ information; others view him as a hacker who accessed classified material illegally. This distinction is also key to the legal proceedings.

Q Can the U.S. Espionage Act be applied to journalists?

Traditionally, the Espionage Act has not been applied to journalists. However, the Assange case is seen as a landmark test of those boundaries, raising widespread concerns over press freedom.

Q Were the documents Assange leaked all authentic?

Most of them were confirmed to be genuine. The U.S. government never claimed they were fake. The real controversy lies not in authenticity, but in how the information was disclosed and its consequences.

Q Which should take precedence—freedom of the press or national security?

There is no clear answer. In a democratic society, both values are important, and how the balance is set depends on each country and its time period.

Q What is Julian Assange's current situation?

He is currently imprisoned in the UK, and the final decision on extradition to the U.S. has not yet been made. This case continues to draw international attention.

In Conclusion: How Much Should We Endure for the Truth?

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have sparked not just a case of whistleblowing, but a critical debate in the digital age about government oversight, freedom of expression, and state control. Assange’s revelations brought hidden truths to light, but the legal and political fallout continues to unfold. This case reminds us to reflect on how we balance freedom of information with responsibility, and transparency with security. Society and legal systems must work together to ensure that "telling the truth" does not become a crime.