▲ Korean National Police Agency
A court has ruled that a disciplinary reprimand issued against a police officer who contacted the investigator in charge after learning that the son of a senior superintendent, who was his former boss, had been booked as a suspect is justified.
The Seoul Administrative Court, specifically Administrative Division 12 (Presiding Judge Kang Jae-won), ruled against plaintiff Senior Superintendent A in May in a lawsuit filed against the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency seeking the cancellation of the reprimand and a disciplinary surcharge.
The grounds for A's disciplinary action included hearing that the son of B, a senior superintendent and former boss, had been booked by the Women and Youth Division of a police station under the Gyeongbuk Northern Provincial Police Agency where A used to work, and subsequently contacting and inquiring with a junior colleague who was working there at the time, in July 2023.
Additional grounds for discipline included giving improper instructions between March and September 2022, while working at a police station under the Gyeongbuk Northern Provincial Police Agency, to a subordinate driving an official vehicle of the Women and Youth Division to give a ride to an acquaintance, and receiving a meal and gift worth 160,000 won from a local business operator in December 2021.
A received the reprimand and disciplinary surcharge in March of last year, and filed a lawsuit in December of the same year after objecting to the decision.
The key issue in the lawsuit was whether A's act of calling the junior colleague who was the investigator in charge constituted "inquiring about a case."
A argued that the call did not constitute grounds for discipline, claiming it was not a request to inquire about the case or intervene in the handling direction.
However, the court concluded that the grounds for discipline were sufficiently established.
It was investigated that during the phone call with the junior colleague at the time, A mentioned that the suspect was the son of Senior Superintendent B, stating, "I know him. He was the division head who I served under," and adding, "I shouldn't be making this call, but I'm sorry for now."
Furthermore, A conveyed words from Senior Superintendent B, saying that B asked, "I hope you wouldn't ask B to come in for questioning," and "Couldn't the investigation proceed with a lawyer present?"
A's junior colleague stated during an inspection investigation, "I requested Senior Superintendent B to appear several times, and there was friction in the process of refusal," adding, "It is true that I felt pressured because A was my superior."
The court stated, "It is reasonable to view that it was clearly an inquiry about a case, and the investigator in charge also perceived this call as an inquiry regarding the senior superintendent's son case."
It further noted, "A's phone call content acts as a factor that undermines the fairness of case handling, regardless of its intention or purpose, as an act of an internal employee inquiring about a case to the investigator in charge," and added, "This corresponds to an act that undermines the fairness of the investigation procedure and risks tarnishing public trust in it."
The Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency established a "Plan to Prohibit Case Inquiries Between Employees" in November 2020, stipulating a complete ban on inquiring about any investigative and crackdown cases to case handlers and departmental colleagues.
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.