Supreme Court Rules Demotion Justified for Police Officer Who Contacted Civil Petitioner 20 Times and Repeatedly Confessed Love

The Supreme Court has ruled that the disciplinary demotion of a police officer who contacted a civil petitioner 20 times to demand the withdrawal of a complaint and repeatedly confessed his feelings to a cafe owner during work hours was justified.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Shin Sook-hee) recently overturned the appellate court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Police Officer A against the head of the Busan Metropolitan Police Agency to cancel the demotion, returning the case to the Busan High Court.

Officer A, a senior police officer (gyeongsa), was demoted in October 2023 for five reasons: inappropriate remarks and damage to dignity, violation of instructions and coercion to cancel a complaint, workplace abuse against junior police officers, unauthorized acquisition of personal information, and dereliction of duty.

Objecting to the decision, Officer A requested a review by the Appeals Commission of the Ministry of Personnel Management, but it was dismissed. He then filed an administrative lawsuit seeking to cancel the demotion.

Unlike the first trial, which dismissed the claim, the second trial ruled that the demotion should be cancelled.

The appellate court judged that the first disciplinary reason (inappropriate remarks and damage to dignity) and the third disciplinary reason (workplace abuse against junior police officers) were not established, and that the remaining three disciplinary reasons did not warrant a demotion.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's ruling and concluded that the demotion was justified.

The second disciplinary reason (violation of instructions and coercion to cancel a complaint) involved Officer A making about 20 phone calls and sending text messages demanding the withdrawal of a complaint after a grievance was filed against him, while also ignoring a superior's order not to contact the individual. The Supreme Court stated that this seriously undermined police discipline and public trust in the organization.

Regarding the fifth disciplinary reason—repeatedly confessing romantic feelings during work hours despite a female cafe owner's refusal—the Supreme Court noted that "considering the impact on the victim and both inside and outside the public service, the severity and nature of the misconduct are not light."

The Supreme Court further stated, "Even if some of multiple disciplinary grounds are not recognized, if the remaining recognized grounds are sufficient to justify the validity of the disciplinary action, maintaining that disciplinary action is not unlawful."

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.