Seoul Bar Association Announces Results of 2025 Judicial Police Evaluation
#. Victim A, who is in the terminal stage of lung cancer, was unable to appear at the police station due to difficulty moving. The responsible judicial police officer took A's situation into consideration and conducted an "on-site investigation" by visiting a police station near A's residence.
#. In a juvenile case, a judicial police officer sternly pointed out the wrongdoing of the juvenile suspect, but after the investigation was over, offered warm words of encouragement so that the youth could grow up properly.
The Seoul Bar Association (President Cho Soonyeol) announced on March 3 that the results of the "2025 Judicial Police Evaluation" showed an overall average score of 78.29 points. This year, which marks the fifth year since the evaluation system was introduced, saw a record 1,034 lawyers participate, submitting a total of 5,215 evaluation forms. A total of 4,040 judicial police officers were evaluated.
When the system was introduced in 2021, the average score was 64.77 points. The scores have shown a steady upward trend: 72.5 points in 2022, 78.13 points in 2023, 77.89 points in 2024, and 78.29 points in 2025.
This year, for the first time, the Seoul Bar Association selected outstanding police officers by name among those who received "four or more evaluations," in order to ensure objectivity in the data.
The outstanding judicial police officers are: ▲ Jeon Sehun (Gwangju Police Station, 100 points), ▲ Choi Inho (Seoul Gangnam Police Station, 100 points), ▲ Kwak Chanhee (Seoul Songpa Police Station, 100 points), ▲ Jeong Jinhui (Seoul Yeongdeungpo Police Station, 98.75 points), and ▲ Jeong Taeho (Seoul Yongsan Police Station, 98.125 points), for a total of five individuals.
These officers received high marks not only for their professional legal understanding and sharp investigative skills but also in terms of human rights protection.
On the other hand, five judicial police officers who received low scores of under 40 points were also named. These officers were criticized for biased investigative practices that cast doubt on their fairness and for unjustified delays in cases.
Major problematic cases included: ▲ visiting a suspect's home in plainclothes without prior notice, failing to identify themselves, and coercively demanding evidence submission; ▲ conducting substantive interrogations at a suspect's workplace without providing Miranda rights notification; and ▲ deceiving a suspect to obtain a DNA sample under the pretext of admission procedures.
By police station, Mokpo Police Station (95.47 points) and Daegu Metropolitan Police Agency (95.45 points) received high evaluations, whereas Namyangju Northern Police Station (69.34 points) and Gyeonggi Northern Provincial Police Agency (68.42 points) recorded relatively low scores.
A Seoul Bar Association representative stated, "We plan to deliver these evaluation results to the relevant agencies to request correction of improper investigative practices and qualitative improvements in investigative services," adding, "We hope that proper investigative culture will be established through sound oversight and checks."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
