'Superior Disciplined for Leaking US-ROK Leaders' Call,' Court Rules 'One-Month Pay Cut Excessive'

Former Liberty Korea Party lawmaker Kang Hyo-sang, who is on trial for leaking the contents of a phone call between the South Korean and U.S. presidents during the Moon Jae-in administration [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A foreign service officer who filed an appeal against a '3-month salary reduction' disciplinary action received as a superior in the 'leak of the contents of the Korea-US summit call' incident and won the case, also filed an appeal against the reduced '1-month salary reduction' disciplinary action and won again.

According to the legal community on the 9th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 13 (Presiding Judge Park Jeongdae) recently ruled in the first trial of the cancellation lawsuit filed by civil servant A against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stating, "Although the reason for the disciplinary action is acknowledged, the '1-month salary reduction' exceeds the limits of discretion and is an illegal disciplinary action," and ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Earlier, former Liberty Korea Party (now People Power Party) lawmaker Kang Hyosang received part of the Korea-US summit call contents from a high school junior (diplomat) working at the US Embassy in May 2019, and then held a press conference stating that 'President Moon Jae-in requested a visit to Korea immediately after his visit to Japan at the end of May' during a call with US President Donald Trump. The Moon Jae-in administration rebutted this as "an unfounded claim that violates diplomatic conventions," and former President Trump visited Korea at the end of June that year.

At that time, A, who was working as a political officer at the US Embassy, was referred to the Central Disciplinary Committee for the leak of the 'Chinjeon' (Level 3 confidential document) containing the contents of the summit call. A, who received a 3-month disciplinary action, went to court, and won a ruling stating that "the necessity of disciplinary action is acknowledged, but the punishment was excessive and should be canceled."

Subsequently, the Central Disciplinary Committee was convened again. A, who received a 1-month salary reduction disciplinary action there, considered even this too severe and again turned to the court.

The court ruled in favor of A. It stated, "The plaintiff's act can be seen as 'a minor offense or negligence.' According to the relevant disciplinary standards, it should only be subject to a 'reprimand'." A was handling various political issues and it was difficult to supervise detailed security matters, and it was judged that a security supervision system at the embassy level had not been established before the incident occurred.

Furthermore, "The person who directly distributed the Chinjeon to the entire Political Section and the Congressional Section was another subordinate, and the plaintiff was the supervisor of that subordinate. Therefore, the level of disciplinary action should be lower than that of the subordinate who received a 3-month salary reduction," the court pointed out. The subordinate of A mistakenly distributed the Chinjeon due to misunderstanding the access restriction guidelines, and during this process, the related contents were leaked through former lawmaker Kang's junior, according to the investigation.

The court added, "Even assuming that the plaintiff's negligence was serious and it was appropriate to select a 'salary reduction' disciplinary action according to the disciplinary standards, the suspicious medal previously awarded to the plaintiff is a merit subject to mitigation under the Enforcement Rules of the Civil Servant Disciplinary Decree. According to the relevant standards, the punishment can be mitigated to a 'reprimand'." The Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not appeal, so the ruling was finalized as is.

Meanwhile, former lawmaker Kang was criminally prosecuted on charges including foreign diplomatic secrecy detection and was sentenced to 6 months in prison with a 1-year probation in the first trial and appealed. The junior who was also indicted received a suspended sentence of 4 months in prison.