“The court ruled that the demotion of a subordinate police officer, who showed insubordination by telling their team leader to ‘just approve the paperwork,’ was justified.”

During work hours, a police officer who prepared for law school admission, disobeyed team leader’s instructions, and raised his voice filed a lawsuit to cancel his salary reduction but lost. According to the legal community on the 25th, the Seoul Administrative Court’s 12th Division, led by Judge Kang Jae-won, ruled against officer A in a lawsuit to cancel his salary reduction punishment against his police station chief. Officer A, who worked at a precinct in Seoul, continuously neglected duties by studying for law school admission, sleeping, and using his phone for long periods between August and November 2024. When the precinct team leader ordered a revision of an assault incident report, Officer A raised his voice for about 45 minutes, saying, “If you’re so good at it, do it yourself,” and “Stop bothering me with personal grudges and just approve the paperwork.” When the police station learned of this, they imposed a one-month salary reduction in February for negligence and insubordination, prompting Officer A to file a lawsuit claiming it was unfair. Officer A argued that he merely requested proper job processing from his team leader, and the rough expression shouldn’t constitute insubordination. He also claimed the negligence was merely a temporary error when he first transferred to the precinct, calling the punishment excessive. However, the court found the disciplinary action justified. Witnesses from the precinct testified that Officer A disobeyed legitimate instructions, mocked, and raised his voice towards the team leader, acknowledging the basic facts of insubordination. Furthermore, it was deemed insufficient to believe the team leader frequently criticized Officer A without reason, and there was no evidence supporting such claims. The court noted that the actions from August to October 2024, including non-work-related study and sleeping or engaging in personal messaging, could not be seen as occurring over a short period. Officer A’s claims that the punishment should be reduced due to having apologized to team members and the team leader’s inappropriate behavior were dismissed as shifting blame and lacking objective evidence. The court concluded that the disciplinary action was not significantly unreasonable or evidently unjust according to societal standards and dismissed the claim.