The origin of this incident was a TV debate of local election candidates held in late May. At the time, County Governor Kwon Ik-hyeon mentioned to his rival, candidate Kim Seong-soo of the Fatherland Innovation Party, that his assets amounted to minus 10.12 billion won, which was 10 billion won different from the actual reported debt of 120 million won. Candidate Kim's side immediately filed a complaint with the police, claiming that County Governor Kwon's remarks were clearly a false statement and an intentional act to negatively stigmatize the opposing candidate among voters. The gap was too large to be dismissed as a simple misreading of the numbers, and it is difficult to even estimate what effect this statement, delivered in real time through broadcasting, would have had on the choices of swing voters. In the end, Candidate Kim's side had no choice but to take a strong response by seeking judicial judgment to protect their legitimate rights and create a fair competitive environment.

What makes the situation more complicated is that Governor Kwon's charges revealed during the police investigation are not limited to violating election laws. County Governor Kwon has already been accused of abuse of power for unfairly interfering in the selection of contractors during the construction of a private company's new factory, so this election law investigation is expected to be a double whammy that threatens his political life. In particular, as specific suspicions have been raised that he served as a broker connecting specific construction companies, the morality controversy surrounding Governor Kwon continues to expand and reproduce even after the election. The police are conducting an investigation focusing on two major issues: suspicions of violation of the Public Official Election Act and allegations of abuse of power, and are known to be looking into the case more carefully and strictly due to his status as the incumbent county governor. It is clear that this all-encompassing pressure will be a significant obstacle to Governor Kwon's ability to run military government in the future.

Meanwhile, this incident goes beyond just County Governor Kwon's personal problem and is sounding an alarm on the overall election culture in the Jeonbuk region. The fact that the Buan Police Station summoned County Governor Kwon as a defendant and conducted an intensive investigation is interpreted as a reflection of the judicial authorities' will to apply a zero-tolerance principle to violations of election law. In particular, the fact that candidate Kim Seong-su's side reported not only County Governor Kwon but also independent candidate Kim Jong-gyu, who had spread text messages containing the same false information, is a clear example of how widespread the candidates' indiscriminate black propaganda is. Even though voters are supposed to vote based on a candidate's policies and vision, making the right choice is extremely difficult in this environment of disinformation. Therefore, depending on the results of this investigation, it is expected that the minimum ethical guidelines that candidates must adhere to in future local elections will be clearly established.

As the investigation progresses, the battle is heating up in some political circles over whether Governor Kwon's remarks were a simple mistake or an intentional political maneuver. County Governor Kwon is refraining from commenting on the grounds that the matter is under investigation rather than providing a specific explanation, but judicial authorities are intensively investigating the circumstances of the remarks made during the debate and whether they were intentional. Since the charge of publishing false facts is a serious crime that can result in a sentence of nullification of election depending on the influence it had on the election results, the possibility that Buan-gun politics will be shaken depending on the results of the investigation cannot be ruled out. Investigative agencies have a duty to fairly investigate the facts without being swayed by external political pressure and provide clear answers to local residents who expect a transparent administrative system. Only when legal justice is established can conflicts in the community be resolved, and broken public service discipline can be reestablished.