"A Phone in the Workplace Restroom Ceiling"... Dismissal of Post Office Manager Who Tried to Illegally Film Colleague Upheld on Appeal

A female colleague using the restroom found the phone and reported it
He denied the allegations, saying, "I accidentally left it in the restroom.".

A court of appeals upheld the dismissal of a post office administrative manager who secretly installed a mobile phone in a restroom at work in an attempt to illegally film a female colleague.

According to Yonhap News Agency on Nov. 12, the 5th Administrative Division of the Busan High Court, presided over by Judge Choi Hwan, upheld a lower court ruling against a former post office administrative manager, identified as A, in a lawsuit seeking to overturn his dismissal by the head of the Busan Regional Office of Korea Post. It also dismissed A's appeal.

It came to light that on March 10 last year, A had installed a mobile phone inside a broken light cover in the ceiling of the unisex restroom at the post office where he worked, in an attempt to illegally film a female colleague. The colleague, who was using the restroom at the time, found the phone and reported it to the police. The Busan Regional Office of Korea Post dismissed A in August of the same year.

A, however, denied installing the phone to film anyone, saying he had simply left it in the restroom by accident. He also filed a lawsuit, arguing that dismissal was an excessively harsh disciplinary measure.

The lower court rejected A's claims, noting that the phone had been placed inside the broken light cover in the ceiling and that its camera lens was pointed toward the toilet. In particular, investigators found that the victim had also discovered A's phone several times in January 2024, including on a restroom windowsill, on the floor, and behind a trash can. In light of these circumstances, the lower court concluded that A had intentionally and repeatedly attempted to film people illegally.

The appellate court also found the lower court's decision to be justified. It dismissed the appeal, stating, "The grounds the plaintiff raises on appeal are not substantially different from those he raised in the lower court, and the additional evidence he submitted is insufficient to overturn the findings that the grounds for dismissal existed and that the disciplinary measure was not excessive."

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