A senior official affiliated with the Ministry of Justice received a reprimand for scolding a subordinate over the handling of a case in a public setting, but a court ruled the disciplinary action was unjust.
The Administrative Division 13 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Jin Hyun-seop) said on the 4th that on Nov. 6 last year it ruled in favor of plaintiff A, an official affiliated with the Ministry of Justice, in a suit seeking to nullify a reprimand imposed by the Ministry of Justice. The panel determined it was unlawful "without justifiable reason."
According to the ruling, in July 2023, A, then serving as the head of an agency under the Korea Immigration Service, an agency under the Ministry of Justice, encountered the incident. At the time, four foreign crew members disembarked from a ship docked at a port without permission under the Immigration Act, and subordinate B and others in charge prepared a screening decision without summoning the crew for questioning and went to the vessel to issue a "warning."
A then questioned B in the office for about 30 minutes about why the screening decision was delivered on-site without a separate investigation. Regarding this, B claimed, "I asked A three times to speak separately in the director's office, but it was not accepted, and I was scolded loudly for more than 10 minutes in front of several employees."
B also said, "I was so humiliated and shocked that I nearly collapsed on the way to lunch as my head went blank," adding that medication was prescribed at a psychiatry clinic.
In June 2024, the Ministry of Justice issued a reprimand to A. The ministry said A treated B in a demeaning manner by questioning B in a public area of the office where four junior employees could see and hear, and by making remarks to the effect of, "Is there a regulation that says you must go to the site and conduct a judicial review?"
A filed a suit to cancel the disciplinary action, saying the remark was never made and neither informal language nor shouting was used. In September last year, A submitted an audio recording from the time of the incident as evidence.
Citing the recording, the court said, "It is hard to see that A raised their voice or shouted," adding, "The content of the questioning was at a level of confirming the basis and background of the handling of the case by a subordinate as the head of the office, and does not appear to be excessive scolding." The court also found it "hard to accept as is" the statements of three other employees who testified favorably for B.
On the issue of scolding in a public place, the court also found there was room to view it as "an educational purpose to correct the way affiliated public officials handle their work." Regarding B receiving psychiatric medication, the court added, "B had suffered from depression in the past, and it is quite possible that personal factors were at play."