A police officer who was given a three-month pay reduction for "negligence in command and supervision as a superior" during the investigation of the Eastar Jet recruitment corruption case won an appeal lawsuit.
The Administrative Division 12 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Kang Jae-won) ruled in favor of Police Inspector A in the pay reduction cancellation lawsuit (2023GuHap79166) filed against the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency on June 13.
A, who was appointed as a police officer in 1987 and promoted to inspector in 2016, worked at Police Station B of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency from 2021. Around May 2021, Police Station B began investigating the Eastar Jet recruitment corruption case, and A, who was the investigation team leader, assigned the case to Police Lieutenant C. The Eastar Jet recruitment corruption case involved former National Assembly member and Eastar Jet founder Lee Sang-jik and others allegedly receiving favors during the 2014-2015 recruitment process, instructing HR personnel to hire specific applicants.
Lieutenant C, who was in charge of the case, prepared an investigation report around October of the same year, recommending a non-prosecution decision due to insufficient evidence. However, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency ordered additional investigation, stating that supplementary investigation was necessary. Following the agency’s directive, C reported that "although witness interviews were conducted, it was judged difficult to secure evidence proving the charges through a search and seizure."
Subsequently, in March 2022, the case was transferred to the prosecution following a complainant’s objection, and the prosecution requested a reinvestigation from Police Station B. The reinvestigation report contained similar findings, and the prosecution proceeded with additional investigation and indicted the related parties.
Meanwhile, around September of the same year, suspicions of police negligence in the investigation of the case were raised in the National Assembly and elsewhere. In response, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency launched an internal investigation into A, C, and others, resulting in a three-month pay reduction for A and a two-month pay reduction for C. This was due to negligence in overall command and supervision of the investigation, such as relying solely on the reports of the person in charge without thorough review of records, despite directives from the superior Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency and requests for reinvestigation from the prosecution.
Disagreeing with the disciplinary action, A filed a petition for reconsideration to cancel or reduce the pay reduction, but it was dismissed, leading A to file a lawsuit.
The court accepted A’s claims.
The bench ruled, "It cannot be concluded that A violated the duties of sincerity and maintenance of dignity under the National Public Service Act, nor can it be definitively said that Police Lieutenant C conducted a negligent investigation of the recruitment corruption case."
It added, "C planned the investigation focusing on securing testimonial evidence from related parties, but faced difficulties due to the uncooperative attitude of a reporter who covered the initial article that triggered the investigation. Therefore, the investigation plan itself cannot be deemed inappropriate. Considering that most directives from the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency and requests for reinvestigation from the prosecution were followed, the lack of progress in the investigation cannot be solely attributed to C."
Furthermore, "It is also difficult to view that A neglected command and supervision as a superior. At the time, A was also involved in investigating a major corporate embezzlement case under the focused command of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency and achieved results, so it cannot be said that A did not perform duties diligently," the court added.
Reporter Ahn Hyun, Legal Newspaper
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
