The post office manager installed a hidden camera in the employee restroom... 2nd degree “dismissal party”

The court's ruling that the dismissal of a post office manager who attempted to illegally film a female colleague by secretly installing a cell phone in a workplace bathroom was justified was upheld in the appeals court.

According to the legal community on the 12th, the 5th Administrative Division of the Busan High Court (Presiding Judge Choi Hwan) upheld the first trial ruling that the plaintiff lost in the lawsuit for cancellation of dismissal filed by Mr. A, a former post office manager, against the head of the Busan Regional Post Office, and dismissed Mr. A's appeal.

On March 10th last year, Mr. A was caught trying to illegally film a female colleague by installing a cell phone inside a broken light cover on the ceiling of the men's and women's bathroom at the post office where he worked.

At the time, a female colleague who was toileting in the bathroom found the cell phone and reported it to the police, and the Busan Regional Postal Service dismissed Mr. A in August of the same year.

Mr. A filed a lawsuit, claiming that he did not install the cell phone for the purpose of filming, but that he accidentally left it in the bathroom and that dismissal was an overly harsh punishment.

However, the first trial did not accept Mr. A's argument because the cell phone was placed in a broken light cover on the ceiling and the camera lens was pointed at the toilet.

In particular, the victim was found to have found Mr. A's cell phone several times in January 2024 on the bathroom window frame, floor, and behind a trash can.

In light of these circumstances, the first trial court determined that Mr. A intentionally and repeatedly attempted to film illegally.

The appellate court also found this first trial judgment to be justified.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, saying, "The reasons the plaintiff asserts in the appellate trial are not significantly different from the claims in the first trial, and the additional evidence submitted is insufficient to overturn the judgment that grounds for dismissal exist and that the level of disciplinary action is not excessive."