On the 16th broadcast of Lee Young-don TV, a current National Election Commission employee exposes the reality of the 6.3 local elections based on their direct experience. [Photo=Screenshot from Lee Young-don TV] 

Table of Contents

① A National Investigation without Witnesses is a 'Donut without Filling'

② The 6·3 Election Management Uncovered by the National Investigation

③ Constitutional Amendment is a Long-Term Task; The Treason Trial Act Should Be Applied

A national investigation has begun to clarify the disenfranchisement incident during the 6·3 local elections. However, if the National Election Commission (NEC) employee who witnessed the use of Wi-Fi, the individuals who directly transported ballot papers, the voters who were unable to vote, and the observers who witnessed the transfer of ballot boxes and vote counting process are not called as witnesses, this national investigation will inevitably become a 'donut without filling'.

The Special Committee for the National Investigation was launched on the 18th and will be active for 45 days until August 1st. The investigation will proceed with a briefing from the NEC, followed by the selection of witnesses and reference persons, on-site verification, and public hearings. Ultimately, the first crucial point of the national investigation will be who is called as a witness.

If Only Heads of Agencies Are Summoned, It Ends with "I Wasn't Informed"

Former NEC Chairman Noh Tae-ak, former and current Secretaries-General, and officials from the Seoul Metropolitan City and Songpa-gu Election Commissions must be summoned as witnesses. This is because they must be held ultimately responsible for the reduction in ballot printing volume and the collapse of the command and reporting structure.

However, it will be difficult to uncover the reality on the ground through a national investigation that only summons agency heads. Agency heads can respond by saying, "I wasn't informed," "It was a judgment made on-site," or "I believe it was handled according to regulations."

The NEC's internal fact-finding committee confirmed a comprehensive failure in the reporting structure to higher committees and the chain of command, recommending an investigation into 12 individuals, including former Chairman Noh Tae-ak, and disciplinary action against 6 operational staff members. To avoid merely repeating the findings of the internal investigation, the national investigation must identify those who actually received instructions and carried out tasks under the decision-makers.

The Wi-Fi Whistleblower Must Be Called as a Witness First

The primary candidate to consider is the current NEC employee who appeared in the interview on Lee Young-don TV.

This whistleblower claims to have witnessed the use of Wi-Fi to operate the voter registration terminal when communication equipment failed at a pre-voting polling station, and stated that related information remained in an internal KakaoTalk group chat. The whistleblower also raised issues regarding the identity verification process, discrepancies in vote and ballot count figures, and inconsistencies in the number of absentee ballots for out-of-jurisdiction voters.

As of now, these are only the whistleblower's claims and have not undergone objective verification. This is precisely why the National Assembly must summon them to take an oath and testify.

The special committee must inquire about which polling station experienced the malfunction, when it occurred, who instructed the Wi-Fi connection, what communication equipment was used, and what instructions and reports remain in the internal chat room. Subsequently, the election managers of the respective polling station, the person in charge of the registration terminal, and representatives from the on-site technical support and maintenance company must be called to corroborate their testimonies.

The National Assembly has no reason to pre-judge the whistleblower's claims as facts, nor to accept the NEC's explanation first. A national investigation is about allowing the whistleblower to state what they directly witnessed, and for the NEC to verify or refute it with records.

The Person Who Directly Transported the Ballot Papers Must Be Summoned

In the management of ballot papers, the individuals who directly transported and received them are more important than the executives.

It is necessary to sequentially verify who took the unnumbered ballot papers from the storage location, who wrote the serial numbers, how many were placed in which containers and transported by which vehicles, and who received them at the polling stations.

During the NEC's fact-finding process, it was revealed that not only regular employees but also administrative assistants and social service workers were mobilized for ballot paper delivery, and that on-site support and reporting were delayed due to the assignment of serial numbers to unnumbered ballot papers.

Therefore, the individuals who directly transported and received the ballot papers must be summoned as witnesses. On-site testimonies about how many were received, when and where, and to whom they were delivered, are more important than the executive's answer of "handled according to regulations."

Observers and Affected Voters Are Also Witnesses

Party-nominated observers who witnessed the polling station where voting was halted, those who saw the sealing and transportation of ballot boxes, and observers who verified the extension of voting hours and the progress of vote counting are also key witnesses.

Most importantly, voters who came to the polling station but were unable to vote must be summoned.

The head of the NEC's fact-finding committee stated that it was confirmed that 12 voters who received waiting tickets at the Jamsil 7-dong 2nd polling station were ultimately unable to vote.

However, there is a possibility that people who returned without receiving waiting tickets, those who left due to long waiting times, and those who did not know voting had resumed and did not return separately exist.

Affected voters are not reference persons to adorn the national investigation. They are the individuals who were actually unable to exercise their right to vote due to the state's failure in election management. Given that the official title of the national investigation includes 'Fact-finding on Infringement of Citizens' Voting Rights,' there is no reason to exclude victims from the witness stand.

As Sworn Witnesses, Not Reference Persons

Those who directly witnessed and executed actions should be selected as witnesses, not reference persons, whenever possible. Sworn witnesses who make false statements are subject to perjury charges under the National Assembly Witnesses and Testimony Act.

The identity and personal safety of whistleblowers must be thoroughly protected. Measures such as closed-door questioning, restrictions on video and audio exposure, the installation of partitions, and prevention of adverse personnel actions must be prepared concurrently. If the whistleblower's identity is exposed while they are on the witness stand, further testimony will inevitably cease.

Witness questioning should not end with summoning individuals one by one and listening to prepared answers. The testimonies of the Wi-Fi whistleblower and on-site managers, ballot paper transporters and receivers, vote counting observers and supervisors, and data entry personnel and those who instructed corrections must be cross-examined based on the same records.

A national investigation that summons only agency heads, excluding eyewitnesses, is not fact-finding. It is merely an occasion to hear the NEC's explanations. The success or failure of this national investigation depends not on how many high-ranking officials are summoned, but on whether those who directly witnessed, directly executed, and directly suffered harm can be placed on the witness stand.