A police officer who refused to stop the indiscriminate assault of a group at a drinking party filed an administrative lawsuit, claiming that the disciplinary action was unfair, but lost the appeal.
The First Administration Department of the Gwangju Law (Chief Judge Kim Seong-joo) rejected the plaintiff's appeal on the 1th, as did the first instance in the appeal of the lawsuit against the Gwangju Police Commissioner against the Gwangju Police Commissioner for the cancellation of the one-month disciplinary sentence.
At around 20:1 p.m. on October 1, 2021, Inspector A, who was working as a strong team leader of the Gwangju East Police Station, left the room at a bar in Dong-gu, Gwangju, when he saw Mr. B violently assaulting Mr. C, a woman who was present.
Enlarge the image
Enlarge the image
During this process, Mr. B re-entered the bar and turned to Mr. C for the second · A third assault was also committed.
Earlier, during the police investigation, Inspector A stated that "Mr. B's sudden actions failed to restrain him properly and Mr. C actively refused to provide assistance," and that "he did not leave the scene before the end of the incident and went home for fear of undermining his neutrality as a police officer when he saw a patrol car coming."
However, the scene of him turning away from the assault and leaving his seat was recorded on CCTV, and extensive media coverage led to a crackdown on the crime. It was criticized for neglecting the duty of police officers to prevent and protect victims.
Eventually, Inspector A was referred to the Disciplinary Committee and on December 2, 3, he received a disciplinary action of one month of reduced pay for breach of duty of decency.
Enlarge the image
In response, Inspector A filed a lawsuit, claiming that "there is a flaw in the disciplinary action."
However, the first trial did not accept Inspector A's argument based on the pleadings and evidence.
The Court of First Instance explained, "According to the CCTV footage inside and outside the bar, Inspector A was only looking at the assault without any restraint," and "when he saw the victim, Mr. C, sitting down, he went outside with only his mobile phone without any relief measures or reporting."
It ruled that the disciplinary action was justified, saying, "Although it was a private gathering, there are grounds for disciplinary action that constitutes a breach of duty of decency in view of the fact that the defenseless victim did not perform his duties as a police officer, such as repairing the incident or providing relief to the victim at the scene of a crime where he was indiscriminately assaulted."
The Court of Second Instance, like the First Instance, also rejected Inspector A's appeal, saying that "the trial court's judgment in dismissing Inspector A's claim was justified."
▶ [1.1.2 1News] A woman is assaulted at a drinking party... Police officers leave without action