Suspect Escapes Due to Negligence; Court Rules Suspension of Prosecution Investigator Justified

Prosecution Investigator Sues Prosecutor General Over Suspension
Administrative Court: "Significant Loss of Trust in Prosecution's Custody Management"

A prosecution investigator who was suspended for negligent management of a wanted suspect lost a lawsuit claiming that the disciplinary action was excessive.

According to the legal community on June 1, the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 2 (presiding judge: Ko Eunsul) ruled against the prosecution investigator in April in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the suspension imposed by the Prosecutor General.

The disciplined prosecution investigator, after taking custody of a suspect who had been wanted for unpaid fines and apprehended in July 2023, failed to conduct a body search and placed the suspect in a temporary detention cell. The suspect, who had two mobile phones, contacted an acquaintance to send a false message claiming that the fine had been paid, then composed another message stating the full amount had been deposited, and showed this to the prosecution investigator, insisting that the fine had been paid.

Believing this, the prosecution investigator did not transfer the suspect to a detention center. When the suspect claimed that the fine had not been deposited due to a remittance error, the investigator accompanied the suspect outside the building to a bank. Later, while the prosecution investigator assigned another investigator to guard duty and went to a cafe, the suspect said they needed to use the restroom, took a taxi, and escaped.

As a result of this incident, the prosecution investigator received a two-month suspension in March of last year. The investigator subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming the disciplinary action was excessive, but the court did not accept this argument. The court stated, "Since the suspect was at the stage of punishment enforcement after a final conviction, it is difficult to consider that a body search was necessary for investigative security," thus acknowledging the investigator's claim that a body search was not strictly required. However, the court also found it inappropriate that the investigator assigned custody duties to a female investigator, who was of a different gender from the suspect and therefore faced difficulties such as restroom use, and then left the workplace.

The court further noted, "When delegating custody duties, the prosecution investigator only instructed not to respond to certain situations and did not provide any information regarding the suspect's custody," determining that this caused the female investigator to be unable to respond proactively and hindered the performance of her duties.

The court concluded, "Custody management duties must be performed diligently, and negligence in duty must be strictly regulated," adding, "The prosecution investigator's lack of diligence significantly undermined trust in the prosecution's handling of custody operations."