Police Officer Who Used Official Vehicle 180 Times for Personal Purposes Over 4 Years Keeps One-Month Suspension

Court Rules “Private Use of Official Vehicle and Obstruction of Investigation Warrant Severe Disciplinary Action”
Officer Loses Lawsuit

The court has ruled that the one-month suspension imposed on a police officer for the private use of an official vehicle and for obstructing an internal investigation was lawful.

On February 1, according to the legal community, the Seoul Administrative Court’s Administrative Division 6 (Presiding Judge Na Jin-i) ruled against police officer A in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the one-month suspension and disciplinary surcharge imposed by the Commissioner of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency.

Officer A was found to have used an official vehicle for private purposes a total of 180 times over approximately four years, from 2019 to 2023, while serving as a team leader. During the internal investigation, he also made false statements claiming the vehicle was used for investigative purposes and asked a fellow officer to make a similar statement. Smoking in the office, which is a designated non-smoking area, was also recognized as grounds for disciplinary action.

The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency viewed these actions as violations of the National Public Service Act’s duty of diligence and duty to maintain dignity, and imposed a two-month suspension along with a disciplinary surcharge amounting to three times the cost of the unauthorized vehicle use. Later, the Personnel Appeals Committee took some mitigating circumstances into account and reduced the suspension period to one month, but maintained the disciplinary surcharge.

The court determined that, based on records of the official vehicle entering the parking lot at the officer’s residence and multiple statements from fellow officers, the private use of the vehicle was repeated.

The court also stated that making false statements during the internal investigation and encouraging a colleague to do the same constituted obstruction of the investigation, and that smoking in the office, a designated non-smoking area, was also grounds for disciplinary action.

The court further ruled, “It is difficult to conclude that the one-month suspension and disciplinary surcharge were an obvious abuse or overreach of discretion.”