On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision on a one-year prison term for Kwak No-hyun, superintendent of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, who had been found guilty of bribing his campaign rival. But the final ruling was so late in coming that Kwak had already served more than half of his four-year term in office.

The main issue of contention had been whether or not it constituted a criminal offense for him to provide 200 million won ($179,000) to his erstwhile rival after the election. Kwak had maintained to no avail that he helped him with the money as a goodwill gesture.

The case dates back to May 2010 when his main rival quit the race, paving the way for Kwak to win the election in June. In September 2011, the prosecution arrested him on charges of bribing his rival.

Shortly after his arrest, he brought his case to the Constitutional Court. He called for a ruling on the clause of the penal code stating that it constitutes an act of bribery for an elected official to provide his erstwhile competitor with money after the election, even in the absence of a prior promise to do so.

In January this year, a district court in Seoul fined him 30 million won while permitting him to get back to work pending his appeal to a higher court. The appellate court gave him a heavier sentence, a one-year prison term, in April. As the Supreme Court has upheld the lower court’s decision, he is required to pay back the 3.5 billion won that he had received in election subsidies, in addition to serving the eight remaining months of his prison term.

With the case now settled for good, the judiciary will have to ponder how to lighten the court’s crowded docket and speed up legal proceedings, in particular, against those charged with electoral crimes.

During the legal process that moved at a snail’s pace, the prosecution called on the court to speed it up. It deemed it necessary to strip Kwak of his post as soon as possible if he was unqualified for the job.

Another issue that needs to be pondered is whether or not to continue to elect education superintendents by direct popular vote. It surely is worthwhile to study an alternative to this costly selection process.