Former Seoul Metropolitan Council member Kim Gyeong (left) and independent lawmaker Kang Seon-woo, arrested on charges of exchanging nomination funds.

The political sphere is once again being shaken by a bribery scandal surrounding nominations for local elections.

Although allegations of money changing hands for nominations have surfaced, the charges applied by the police were violations of the Political Funds Act and breach of trust, not bribery, leading to accusations of a "leniency".

The reason the police could not apply bribery charges is simple. The law views nominations not as public affairs but as internal party activities, or party duties.

Supreme Court precedents also hold the same interpretation. Political parties are considered political associations, not state agencies, and nominations are internal political activities of the party.

Therefore, even if a member of the National Assembly is involved in the nomination process, it is difficult to consider it as performing official duties under criminal law. The logic is that since it is not a public duty, bribery charges are also difficult to establish.

From a legal perspective, this argument seems plausible. However, it is far from reality in politics.

In Korean politics, nominations are not merely internal party appointments. Especially in local elections, a nomination often signifies election itself.

In reality, National Assembly members control regional party chapters, and these chapters influence local election nominations. Candidates who receive nominations become local council members, and these local councils, in turn, form the local political power structure.

Ultimately, this structure means that National Assembly members effectively hold the appointment power for local politics.

In practical politics, nominations are a power that determines entry into public office.

However, the law considers this power to be in the private domain. It's a structure where power performs public functions, but responsibility remains in the private sphere.

This is why, even when nomination-related bribery cases occur, they are usually processed as violations of the Political Funds Act or breach of trust, rather than bribery.

The problem is that as long as this structure persists, nomination corruption cannot be fundamentally curbed.

This is also why bribery scandals surrounding nominations are repeated. It is because, although it is the power to create public office, it is legally not considered a public duty.

It is time to fill this institutional gap. A provision should be newly added to the Public Official Election Act to clearly define as election crimes any instances where money or financial benefits are exchanged during a party's candidate recommendation and nomination process.

This means that the exchange of nomination funds should be defined not merely as a political funding issue, but as a crime that undermines the electoral order.

This is, in a way, a "Kang Seon-woo Prevention Act."

While the autonomy of political parties should be respected, the power to create public office cannot remain entirely in the private domain. Nominations are internal party activities, and at the same time, they are the gateway to public office.

The act of buying and selling nominations is, in essence, no different from buying and selling national representatives. If the power to create public office is not a public duty, then what exactly constitutes a public duty in Korean politics?

This question can no longer be postponed.

We must enact a "Kang Seon-woo Prevention Act" to fill the legal vacuum surrounding the nomination power.