Successful Civil Service Exam Candidate Expelled Over Illegal Filming Accusation... Court Rules "No Intent" and Provides Relief

Illegal Judgment in Talent Development Institute Expulsion Process
Criminal Charges Filed but Prosecutors Also Dismissed Case

Seoul Central District Court / Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Jo] A candidate who was expelled for illegally filming part of a trainee's body while undergoing training after passing the national civil service level 5 open recruitment exam (administrative exam) won an appeal lawsuit.

The Criminal Division 9 of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Kim Si-cheol) ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the 10th in a lawsuit filed by Mr. A, who was expelled from the National Human Resources Development Institute for Civil Servants, against the director of the institute seeking nullification of the expulsion. The court stated, "The expulsion is not only substantively illegal as it is difficult to see that there was an intention to take photographs, but also procedurally illegal."

Mr. A was expelled last May on charges of illegally filming part of a female trainee's body in a classroom at the Human Resources Development Institute. Mr. A denied the charges, saying, "I intended to capture photos of the team leaders, and the victim from another team was accidentally included as part of the background," but this was not accepted. Ultimately, Mr. A filed a lawsuit challenging the expulsion.

The court accepted Mr. A's claim and judged that there was no intention to film. The court explained, "In the problematic photo, the victim was not enlarged nor was any specific part emphasized, and Mr. A took the photo while leaning away from the victim, which differs from typical illegal filming."

The court also found that the Human Resources Development Institute violated procedural law by infringing on Mr. A's right to defense during the expulsion process. The court pointed out, "Despite Mr. A voluntarily cooperating by undergoing digital forensic analysis of his phone to prove his innocence, the institute refused to allow him to view the statements and completed the procedure within just nine days, limiting his opportunity to exercise his right to defense."

Mr. A was also criminally reported in this case but was not prosecuted by the prosecution. The prosecution judged that there was no intent to commit a crime considering various circumstances, including the absence of other obscene photos or videos on Mr. A's phone. The victim appealed the prosecution's decision, but it was dismissed in March.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.