'Verbal Abuse and Power Harassment by Police Officer' Loses Appeal Against Reprimand Disciplinary Action

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A police officer who was reprimanded for abusing a subordinate filed an appeal lawsuit, but the court did not accept it.

According to the legal community on the 23rd, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 14 (Presiding Judge Lee Sanghoon) recently ruled against plaintiff A in the first trial of the cancellation lawsuit of the reprimand disposition filed against the Commissioner of the National Police Agency.

Seoul Administrative Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. / Photo by Hyunmin Kim kimhyun81@

Earlier, the Central Disciplinary Committee for Police Officers of the National Police Agency issued a "reprimand" to A in March 2021. The Central Disciplinary Committee judged, "He shouted and verbally abused a subordinate in front of colleagues, saying the subordinate's work ability was insufficient," and "made inappropriate remarks mentioning female officers present at a dinner gathering."

It also pointed out, "He instructed a non-smoking employee to buy cigarettes at the store when visiting the office and made them repair his laptop, among other personal errands." A's smoking in the office was also criticized.

A filed an appeal lawsuit. During the trial, he argued, "There is no objective evidence of verbal abuse or inappropriate remarks. Since the abuse report was made through another employee, the purpose was distorted during the reporting process."

He also claimed, "At the time, I was using crutches due to surgery and had difficulty moving, and the assistant employee personally fulfilled requests such as buying cigarettes," adding, "(Because movement was difficult) I smoked an 'electronic cigarette' indoors, which is a matter subject to a fine."

The first trial dismissed A's claim, judging that all disciplinary reasons were recognized. The court stated, "According to the statements and written testimonies of the reporter and other witnesses prepared during the investigation, the facts of the remarks are sufficiently recognized," and "As a subordinate receiving instructions, it was difficult to refuse A's requests easily. Considering that the issue could have been resolved by other means, such as purchasing cigarettes in advance through family members, it is hard to view this as a simple personal favor."

The court ruled, "Even considering the disadvantages A must endure due to this disciplinary action, it cannot be said that the discipline has lost its validity significantly," and it is difficult to see the disciplinary action as an abuse or deviation of discretionary power."

A appealed this ruling.