"If You Can Do It So Well, Do It Yourself"... Court Upholds Pay Reduction for Insurbordinate Police Officer

Studying for Law School and Napping During Work Hours... One-Month Pay Reduction
Court: "Failure to Follow Legitimate Orders from Superior... Disciplinary Action Justified"

A police officer who studied for law school entrance exams during working hours and raised his voice in protest against a superior's work orders filed a lawsuit challenging a pay reduction, but the court ruled that the disciplinary action was justified.

According to Yonhap News Agency on May 25, citing legal sources, the Seoul Administrative Court's 12th Administrative Division (Presiding Judge Kang Jae-won) ruled against Officer A, who had filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the pay reduction imposed by the head of his police station. The court stated, "It is difficult to find that the disciplinary action is significantly unreasonable by social standards or is objectively and clearly unjust," and dismissed Officer A's claim.

Officer A, who worked at a police precinct in Seoul, was found to have neglected his work duties from August to November 2024 by preparing for law school entrance exams, including studying TOEIC and the Legal Education Eligibility Test (LEET), during working hours. The internal investigation also uncovered that he was found sleeping on a chair and engaging in private conversations via messenger during work hours.

The court has ruled that the demotion of a police officer who neglected duties during working hours and clashed with superiors is justified. Yonhap News.

Officer A also had conflicts with his superior, the precinct team leader. When the team leader ordered him to revise a report on an assault case, Officer A reportedly raised his voice for about 45 minutes, saying, "If you think you can do it so well, why don't you correct it yourself, Team Leader?" and "Don't harass me out of personal feelings; just sign off on it."

In February of this year, the police station imposed a one-month pay reduction on Officer A for neglect of duty and violation of the obligation to obey superiors. In response, Officer A argued that the disciplinary measure was excessive, claiming, "My remarks may have been somewhat harsh, but I was merely requesting proper handling of the task." He also contended that the alleged neglect of duty was only a temporary mistake made when he had just joined the precinct.

However, the court acknowledged the basic facts of insubordination and determined that Officer A had violated the duty of obedience and the duty to maintain dignity as a public official, as stipulated in the National Civil Service Act, and thus ruled the disciplinary action lawful.

The court further stated, "Police officers who witnessed the incident said in the internal investigation that Officer A refused to comply with legitimate instructions from the team leader, responded sarcastically, and raised his voice, telling the team leader to 'just sign off on it.' There is no evidence that the team leader had repeatedly criticized the plaintiff without reason, nor is there proof to support such a claim."

Regarding the neglect of duty, the court noted, "It has been confirmed through witness statements and other evidence that from August to October 2024, Officer A was engaged in studies unrelated to his work, such as TOEIC and LEET, slept on a chair, and engaged in private messenger conversations during working hours."

As for Officer A's claim that he apologized to his team members and that the team leader was also at fault, the court found, "This is merely an attempt to evade responsibility and shift blame onto others, and there is no objective evidence to support it," and rejected the argument.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.