The Seoul Administrative Court has ruled that the National Police Agency's decision to dismiss a police officer for "three or more instances of drunk driving"?after he was caught drunk driving again following two previous disciplinary actions for the same offense?was unjust. On March 27, the 14th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Lee Sangdeok) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by police officer A against the Commissioner of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency to revoke the dismissal (Case No. 2024GuHap63878). The court also ruled that the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency must bear the litigation costs.
[Facts]
Officer A, serving as a police lieutenant at the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, received a "reprimand" disciplinary action in 2001 for drunk driving. In 2012, A was caught drunk driving again, and this time, a traffic accident occurred. Nevertheless, A left the scene without taking any measures and received a "demotion" as disciplinary action. According to Article 79 of the National Public Officials Act, there are six types of disciplinary actions: dismissal, removal, demotion, suspension, pay reduction, and reprimand. Dismissal, removal, demotion, and suspension are considered severe disciplinary actions, while pay reduction or reprimand are considered minor disciplinary actions.
In August 2023, A was again caught drunk driving. When the police, responding to a report, requested a breathalyzer test, A refused and was arrested on the spot. As a result, in October of that year, A received a summary order from the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court, imposing a fine of 10 million won for violating the Road Traffic Act (refusal to take a breathalyzer test).
The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, citing damage to the dignity of a police officer, applied the disciplinary standards of Article 4 of the "Detailed Enforcement Rules of the Police Officers' Disciplinary Decree"?specifically, the standards for "two instances of drunk driving" or "three or more instances of drunk driving"?and dismissed A in October 2023. A subsequently filed a lawsuit.
[Court Ruling]
The Seoul Administrative Court sided with A, stating that "the dismissal by the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency is unlawful." The court explained, "This dismissal did not sufficiently take into account the fact that A's previous drunk driving offenses occurred a long time ago, and, even considering the severity of the misconduct, the punishment is disproportionately severe and thus constitutes an abuse of discretion and is unlawful."
The court further stated, "Since A already had two previous disciplinary actions for drunk driving, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency applied the disciplinary standards for 'two instances of drunk driving' (ranging from dismissal to demotion) or 'three or more instances of drunk driving' (ranging from dismissal to removal). However, in cases like A's, where the previous offenses occurred 11 and 22 years ago, responsibility for those offenses has been significantly diluted, and the impact of those offenses on public discipline and public trust in officials appears to be quite limited." The court continued, "Since the agency chose the most severe type of disciplinary action without considering the temporal distance of A's previous offenses and the corresponding degree of blame and dilution of responsibility, it is difficult to consider the disciplinary action lawful simply because it falls within the prescribed range of disciplinary standards."
The court also noted, "Dismissal is the most severe disciplinary action stipulated by the National Public Officials Act. It not only strips the official of their status but also imposes significant disadvantages, such as a five-year restriction on reappointment as a public official and a reduction in retirement pay and severance allowance." The court emphasized, "Because dismissal results in additional economic and status-related disadvantages beyond loss of employment, it should be imposed only in exceptional cases where it is truly necessary." The court added, "Even considering all the circumstances cited by the police agency as grounds for dismissal?including previous drunk driving offenses, the circumstances of refusing the breathalyzer test, and the timing of the drunk driving incident?it cannot be said that dismissal is the only way to achieve the disciplinary purpose."
The court concluded, "While there is no excuse for A's refusal to comply with the breathalyzer test after driving a passenger car under the influence, no personal or property damage occurred as a result of the drunk driving incident." The court also noted, "A served as a police officer for approximately 32 years prior to the dismissal, received multiple commendations, and generally performed his duties diligently. Due to the dismissal, A's retirement pay and severance allowance have been reduced by half, which is likely to cause financial hardship."
Hong Yoonji, Law Times reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
