Until only a few decades ago, most litigants in Free Expression cases were dissidents-anarchists or members of splinter political groups, or others not in the mainstream of Korean thinking. Although such persons still sue for doing so, a new class of litigants has appeared-the public figures and political candidates, eligible voters or netizens about the freedom of political opinion. Most of what we learn about government and public officials comes via the mass media. Last year there were certain well-defined and narrowly limited cases of political speeches, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. This paper is to review the cases related freedom of political express from the Courts of Korea in 2004. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of political ideas, and are of such slight legal value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. In this paper I pose broader questions about the role of the public figure generally in the political process. This includes the electoral process itself as well as the political climate between elections and political discussion generally. Korean Constitutional Court and Korean Supreme Court have long recognized a legitimate and often compelling state interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process and people's ability to participate in it. But the importance of freedom of expression rests at least in part on its role in effective self-government. So I emphasize in this paper, full and free discussion may be so fundamental to the political process that attempts to regulate expression to purify the process ultimately may undermine it instead.