Kim Loses Lawsuit to Overturn Ministry Warning
Court Rules "Warning Was Lawful"
U-20 National Team Kim Jinya Photo by Korea Football Association
Kim Jinya, a former national football team player who received an exemption from military service after winning a gold medal at the 2018 Asian Games, has lost his appeal in the second trial to overturn a warning issued by the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism for submitting a falsified certificate of volunteer service as a substitute for military duty.
On August 22, the Administrative Division 8-1 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judges: Jeong Chongryeong, Cho Jingu, and Lee Youngchang) dismissed Kim's appeal in the second trial of the lawsuit seeking to cancel the warning related to his alternative service, thereby upholding the original ruling against him.
Kim won the gold medal in men's football at the 2018 Jakarta-Palembang Asian Games and was incorporated as an art and sports personnel in August 2020. He received a special exemption from military service, which required him to undergo four weeks of basic military training and perform 544 hours of volunteer work in the sports field over 34 months instead of regular military duty.
Kim performed his alternative service at middle and high schools, but issues were found in the certificates of service he submitted to the government between November and December 2022. In November, he reported having volunteered at both a middle school and a high school on the same date and time, and the supporting photos were identical. The certificates submitted in December were found to have been forged by Kim's agent rather than by the schools.
In July 2023, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism issued a warning to Kim for submitting falsified records of volunteer service. As a result, 34 hours were added to his required service time.
In the first trial, Kim argued, "It was not intentionally forged; it was entirely a mistake made by my agent during the process of preparing the documents on my behalf."
However, the court of first instance ruled, "The ultimate responsibility for submitting the certificate of alternative service lies with the plaintiff himself," and added, "The forged parts were clearly different in font and size, so if the plaintiff had paid attention, he could have recognized it," rejecting his claim.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
