Gangnam Police Officer Accused of Abusive Conduct Ends Case Without Disciplinary Action

Warning Without Record Is Even Lighter Than 'Reprimand'
Counter-Investigation Into Employees Who Reported the Abuse Remains Ongoing

It has been confirmed that a senior police officer who underwent an internal investigation at the Gangnam Police Station in Seoul, following allegations of harassment against subordinate employees, avoided formal disciplinary action. While the misconduct was acknowledged, the matter was concluded with a "warning without record," a non-disciplinary action that does not amount to formal punishment. Conversely, a counter-investigation into the employees who reported the abuse is still ongoing.

Gangnam Police Station, Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

According to the police on September 23, the disciplinary committee of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency issued a warning without record to Inspector A from the Gangnam Police Station last month. A warning without record is even lighter than the mildest form of police disciplinary action, and is given when the disciplinary committee takes extenuating circumstances into account and opts not to impose any penalty other than a warning.

Inspector A continues to work at the Gangnam Police Station following the warning, without being subject to any personnel changes. Although Inspector A had been temporarily suspended when the internal investigation began in January, the station reinstated A to the original department in March after one of the victims transferred to a different department. Another victim had already been transferred to another police station in October last year. The Seoul Metropolitan Police explained that because the victims’ departments had changed, separation measures had been implemented. However, there has been criticism within Gangnam Police Station that, in effect, only the victims were moved, raising concerns about the adequacy of the response.

This incident began in October last year when the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency received intelligence about workplace harassment by Inspector A. The alleged victims initially refrained from testifying, but came forward with formal complaints in January this year, providing first-hand statements. It was determined that the victims, after requesting flexible working hours for childcare reasons, were subjected to unfair treatment by Inspector A, such as being told “you must get permission every time you go to the restroom." Concluding its investigation, the Seoul Metropolitan Police found issues with Inspector A’s conduct and referred the case to the disciplinary committee in June this year.

Controversy over the internal investigation process is also ongoing. Previously, it was revealed that the inspector responsible for human rights and disciplinary oversight at the Seoul Metropolitan Police had private contact with Inspector A’s lawyer, prompting suspicions of undue influence. Additionally, the employees who belatedly filed the complaints are now themselves the subjects of internal investigations for “undermining internal unity,” sparking accusations of retaliatory investigations. These investigations were initiated after Inspector A filed a separate complaint against the employees who had reported the workplace harassment.

The Seoul Metropolitan Police maintain that there are differences between claims of retaliatory investigations and the actual circumstances. They insist the current investigations into the victims were triggered by Inspector A’s individual grievance filings, not by any targeted counter-investigation ordered by internal affairs. The investigations into the employees are still ongoing.

A spokesperson for the Seoul Metropolitan Police stated, "The disciplinary committee recognized the abuse of authority, but took various circumstances into account in determining the outcome." Addressing the controversy about retaliatory investigations, the spokesperson added, "It would also be problematic not to look into matters once a grievance has been filed. We are not conducting a unilateral investigation, but are verifying the facts in accordance with the grievance procedures."

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