[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] A police officer who was disciplined for receiving dinner and golf invitations from an acquaintance formerly involved in a gang filed an appeal lawsuit, but the court did not accept it.
According to the legal community on the 25th, the Administrative 7th Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Jeong Sanggyu) recently ruled against police officer A, who holds the rank of superintendent, in the first trial of the lawsuit seeking cancellation of a suspension order filed against the Commissioner of the National Police Agency.
A was introduced to B, a former gang member under surveillance, by a senior police officer who retired in February 2020. Unlike those under continuous intelligence gathering, individuals under surveillance are members of organizations but are not involved in illegal activities and are simply monitored with interest.
In April of the following year, A attended a golf meeting and had dinner with police seniors and juniors at B's suggestion. The golf fees for four people, amounting to 583,500 KRW, and dinner expenses of 341,000 KRW were paid by B using his credit card.
Two months later, the police imposed a two-month suspension on A and additionally fined him 802,250 KRW. This was because he received financial benefits from B, who was related to his duties, violating the Improper Solicitation and Graft Act (Kim Young-ran Act), and because he held a private gathering just one week after a directive emphasizing compliance with COVID-19 quarantine rules was issued, violating the duties of diligence, integrity, and maintenance of dignity under the State Public Officials Act.
A filed a lawsuit in protest. He argued, "During the investigation, I collected 250,000 KRW in cash from other police officers, totaling 750,000 KRW, and returned it, so it cannot be considered that I accepted entertainment," and "When we played golf, B was no longer classified as a gang member under surveillance, so there is no recognition of duty-relatedness."
The first trial court did not accept these claims. The court stated, "Although he claims to have paid his share in cash, there is no objective evidence or circumstances supporting this," and "It is hard to accept from experience that B, who had no special friendship, paid the entire golf fee and that cash was handed over without any objective evidence for cost settlement."
Furthermore, the court judged that "B can be considered a duty-related person." The court explained, "B was registered as a gang member under surveillance in the police database until March 2021, just before the golf meeting, due to gang-related activities about 20 years ago. Currently, he holds positions as CEO or director in several companies, so the possibility of becoming a complainant or accused in related lawsuits cannot be excluded," and "A has held key investigative positions and is likely to be responsible for various investigative commands as a high-ranking police officer in the future."
The court added, "There is no evidence that A received a solicitation from B, and it is difficult to see that he was specifically aware of the duty-relatedness. Also, the accompaniment of police seniors and juniors with whom he had a friendship seems to have influenced his attendance at the golf meeting," but noted, "The two-month suspension itself took these circumstances into account, and the Appeal Review Committee reduced the suspension to one month considering fairness with other cases."
Since A did not appeal, this ruling became final.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
