Court upholds discipline of police captain who called investigator about boss's son

A court has ruled that disciplining a Seoul police captain who called an investigator handling a case involving his former superior's son was justified. The captain, identified as A, argued he had made no improper request, but the court found the contact undermined the fairness of the investigation regardless of his intent or purpose.

According to legal sources, the Seoul Administrative Court's 12th Division, presided over by Judge Kang Jae-won, ruled against A on May 21 in his lawsuit seeking to overturn a reprimand.

A reprimand — the lightest form of disciplinary action — amounts to a formal caution. The court also upheld as valid disciplinary grounds A's private use of an official vehicle and his acceptance of a meal and a scarf as gifts.

A joined the force as a patrol officer in 1990 and rose to the rank of inspector. He received the reprimand in March last year.

According to the disciplinary committee, in March 2023 A called the investigator assigned to a case involving the son of a senior superintendent — his former superior — who was under investigation by the women and juveniles unit, and inquired about the case. He also used an official vehicle to take a personal acquaintance home after a private drinking gathering, and accepted a meal and a muffler worth 150,000 won ($98) from a local business owner.

A filed suit in December last year, calling the reprimand unjust. During the trial, his legal team argued there were no grounds for discipline, saying he had not intervened in how the case was handled or applied any pressure — and therefore had not made an improper request.

On the vehicle use and gifts, A argued he had not sought personal gain or engaged in gapjil — the abuse of power by a superior. He further claimed he had not used his position as a police station captain to receive the meal or the gift, saying he had accepted the scarf in the moment, in a public setting, due to the atmosphere of the occasion. He maintained that because there was no quid pro quo, the conduct did not constitute grounds for discipline.

The court rejected all of A's arguments.

On the inquiry about the case, the court said the conduct qualified as a disciplinary offense "regardless of whether it actually influenced the outcome of the investigation," adding that it "clearly undermined the fairness of case handling, irrespective of intent or purpose." The court further noted the conduct risked "damaging the integrity of investigative procedures and eroding public trust."

That finding was supported by the investigating officer's testimony during an internal affairs probe. The officer said it was "true that I felt pressured" by A's call and that the conversation had been "generally uncomfortable throughout."

On the private use of the official vehicle, the court said the conduct was "clearly for a personal purpose — to take A's acquaintance home — and not for official duties," adding that "given A's position and relationship, it is reasonable to conclude that the employees could not have refused his request."

On the meal and the scarf, the court ruled that "accepting a gift from a local business owner is clearly related to police duties," and that even if a direct connection to official duties were not established, the conduct "in itself invites suspicion about A's integrity as a police officer and constitutes behavior that damages his dignity, in breach of the duty of diligence he is required to uphold."

The court also found the severity of the disciplinary measure to be lawful.

The court said A's conduct "risks undermining public trust in the police organization as a whole," and that "given the significant negative impact and ripple effects on society, the gravity of the violation is serious and weighty."

It concluded that "the public interest in establishing official discipline — the goal pursued through the disciplinary action — outweighs the disadvantage to A."

The ruling is not yet final. A filed an appeal on May 26, and the case is now pending before the Seoul High Court.