"잘났으면 직접 고치세요" "결재나 해"..근무 중 '로스쿨' 공부한 '하극상' 경찰 끝내 (자막뉴스) / SBS

A police officer who received a salary reduction for preparing for law school entrance exams during working hours and disobeying a team leader's orders requested the court to overturn the disciplinary action, but lost the case. The 12th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court ruled against the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Officer A against his police station chief seeking the cancellation of the salary reduction. According to the judgment and other documents, Officer A, who was working at a police substation in Seoul, studied for law school entrance exams unrelated to his duties—such as the TOEIC and the Law School Admission Test—for approximately three months starting last August. During this time, he continued to engage in acts of negligence, such as lying down on a chair to sleep or having private conversations on a messenger app. Furthermore, it was found that when the substation team leader ordered him to revise a report on an assault incident, Officer A raised his voice for about 45 minutes, saying, "If you are so good at it, you should revise it yourself," and "Don't harass me with personal feelings; just approve it." Upon learning of these facts, the police station to which A belonged imposed a one-month salary reduction in February on grounds of dereliction of duty and insubordination; A subsequently filed a lawsuit claiming the punishment was unfair. A argued that the disciplinary action was excessive, asserting that he had merely requested proper handling of duties from his team leader and that the use of harsh language could not be considered an act of insubordination. He further claimed that the dereliction of duty was merely a temporary error that occurred shortly after his transfer to the precinct. However, the court ruled that the disciplinary action against A was justified. The court acknowledged the basic facts regarding the act of insubordination, stating, "Police officers from the precinct who witnessed the situation testified during the internal investigation that A refused to comply with the team leader's legitimate instructions, mocked or talked back to him, and raised his voice to the effect that he should just approve documents." Furthermore, noting that "it is insufficient to conclude that the team leader habitually made baseless accusations against the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support this," the court assessed that A had violated the duty of obedience and the duty to maintain dignity under the State Public Officials Act. (Reporting: Kim Ji-wook, Video Editing: Kim Hye-ju, Design: Yang Hye-min, Production: Digital News Department) #SBSNews #News #Realtime Copyright Ⓒ SBS. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction, redistribution, and use for AI learning are prohibited.