Even if some of the reasons for disciplinary action are denied, if the remaining grounds for disciplinary action are serious, the disciplinary action will be maintained.

Even if some of the reasons for disciplinary action are denied, if the remaining grounds for disciplinary action are serious, the disciplinary action will be maintained.

(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Lee Mi-ryeong = The Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary action against a police officer who contacted a citizen 20 times requesting cancellation of a civil complaint and repeatedly confessed to a cafe owner during working hours was justified.

According to the legal community on the 27th, the 1st Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Shin Sook-hee) recently overturned the original trial's ruling in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Mr. A against the Busan Metropolitan Police Agency Commissioner to cancel the demotion and sent the case back to the Busan High Court.

Mr. A, who was in the rank of sergeant, was demoted in October 2023 for five reasons, including ▲ inappropriate words and behavior and damage to dignity, ▲ violation of instructions and forcing cancellation of civil complaints, ▲ abuse of power toward junior police officers, ▲ unfair acquisition of personal information, and ▲ neglect of work.

Mr. A objected to this and submitted his appeal to the Appeals Review Committee of the Ministry of Personnel Management, but when it was rejected, he filed an administrative lawsuit requesting that the demotion be canceled.

Unlike the first trial, which dismissed the claim, the second trial ruled to cancel the demotion.

The second trial ruled that the first reason for disciplinary action (inappropriate words and actions and damage to dignity) and the third reason for disciplinary action (abuse of power by a junior police officer) were not recognized, and the remaining three reasons for disciplinary action were not misconduct worthy of demotion.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the second trial judgment and deemed the demotion to be justified.

The second reason for disciplinary action (violation of directives and forcing cancellation of civil complaints) is that when a civil complaint was filed against Mr. A, he sent a call or text message to the complainant about 20 times requesting cancellation and did not comply with his superior's order to refrain from contact. As a result, the Supreme Court judged that the discipline of the police organization and the public's trust in the organization were seriously damaged.

The act of repeatedly professing affection to the cafe hostess during working hours despite her refusal to do so (fifth disciplinary action) was also considered to be "not a light matter or degree of misconduct, considering the impact it has on the victim and the inside and outside of the public office."

The Supreme Court then stated, "Even if some of the multiple reasons for disciplinary action are not recognized, if some of the other recognized reasons for disciplinary action are sufficient to recognize the validity of the disciplinary action, it is not illegal to maintain the disciplinary action."