DP Convention Poll Manipulation: Complainant Investigation Begins

He explained that there was an organized manipulation of public opinion for a specific candidate during the DP convention, and he filed a complaint against the YouTubers who broadcast this.

"Since I filed a complaint against a YouTuber who broadcasted about the horrific public opinion manipulation that occurred at the DP convention, as the representative of the joint complainants, I am undergoing investigation today."

Attorney Park Woo-won stated that a complaint was filed not only for the accused's act of manipulating public opinion polls but also for their organized actions, conspiring with multiple individuals to direct, execute, and receive reports. Attorney Park defined these actions as crimes that significantly impact election results and called for a thorough investigation and severe punishment.

"We filed a complaint regarding the act of manipulating public opinion polls, and the accused's organized actions as the main culprit, conspiring with multiple people to direct, execute, and receive reports. We are seeking a thorough investigation and punishment for these actions."

Kim Seong-soo claimed that secondary harm and cyberbullying have persisted from the accused's side since the complaint was filed. He stated that the accused, to conceal or distort their crimes, even sued the elected party leader and filed a complaint against him and Kim Han-mae, the 'Sa Saeng' (extreme fan) representative. He also criticized the ongoing threats through broadcasts and the proliferation of cyberbullying and 'coordinate targeting' (online harassment) by supporters, which has become a business model for the YouTuber in question.

"To conceal or distort their crimes, they even sued the currently elected party leader and filed a complaint against me, a joint lead complainant, and Kim Han-mae, the Sa Saeng representative. And they are continuously making threats on broadcast."

Attorney Park Woo-won explained that the specific method of public opinion poll manipulation involved inducing false responses for age, gender, and regional information. He pointed out that due to the nature of public opinion polls, where the value of a single vote is very high, such manipulation directly impacted election results, even to the point of overturning them. This emphasizes the high illegality and reprehensibility of the crime.

"In the public opinion poll, unfair polling was conducted by inducing false responses for age, gender, and region. The results of this poll, where the value of a single vote is very high, ultimately affected the election and even overturned the outcome."

Attorney Park Woo-won emphasized that this case involves 200 admitted instances by the accused themselves, and the reports and execution details from numerous individuals were revealed through broadcasts. He argued that these crimes are far more serious than the 2012 Supreme Court precedent, where the main culprit was arrested, and defined them as serious acts that undermine democratic order.

"This case involves 200 admitted instances by the accused themselves, and the reports and execution details from numerous individuals were revealed through broadcasts. These crimes are far more serious than the case in the 2012 Supreme Court precedent."

Attorney Park Woo-won warned that there is a high risk of evidence destruction if the accused uses multiple mobile devices and if internet data, such as YouTube broadcast materials, are not preserved. He pointed out that there is a significant concern that the accused may hide or dispose of electronic devices, thereby hindering the investigation. Accordingly, he cited circumstances of evidence destruction, which constitute grounds for detention under the Criminal Procedure Act, and emphasized the need to secure evidence through swift seizure and detention. He expressed concern that truth discovery might be difficult without such compulsory investigation and urged active intervention by judicial authorities.

"Many mobile devices were used, and if various materials on YouTube broadcasts are not preserved, there is a considerable risk of evidence destruction. If the accused hides or disposes of electronic devices, there is a significant risk of evidence destruction, which would hinder the investigation."