Law: "Suspension of Diplomat for Leaking 'Korea-US Summit Call Contents' Is Legal"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Seongpil Cho] A diplomat who was penalized with a salary reduction for providing the pretext for the leak of the 2019 phone conversation between the South Korean and U.S. presidents filed a lawsuit challenging the disciplinary action but lost the case.

According to the legal community on the 16th, the Seoul Administrative Court Administrative Division 14 (Chief Judge Sanghoon Lee) ruled against Mr. A in the lawsuit he filed against the Minister of Foreign Affairs seeking cancellation of the salary reduction. The court stated, "The plaintiff's actions constitute a violation of the duty of diligence under the Foreign Service Act and the National Public Service Act," and "there is no illegality in the defendant's exercise of discretion in the disciplinary measure."

Mr. A, who was serving as the Political Counselor at the South Korea-U.S. Embassy in March 2019, was ordered to reduce his salary for three months after he instructed and approved the distribution of copies of a confidential letter containing the phone conversation between the two presidents to employees not directly related to the work. The reason was that he provided the opportunity for the leak of the 'Level 3 Secret' conversation content. The conversation was partially passed on to former Liberty Korea Party (now People Power Party) lawmaker Hyo-sang Kang through another diplomat Mr. K in May of that year. Former lawmaker Kang held a press conference to announce this content, sparking political controversy. The confidential letter included the content that "President Moon Jae-in requested a visit to South Korea immediately after President Trump’s visit to Japan" during their phone call.

Mr. A filed a review request with the Personnel Appeals Committee challenging the disciplinary action, but after it was dismissed, he filed this lawsuit. He argued, "I am not responsible for managing the confidential letter, so I cannot be held accountable for negligence in allowing Mr. K to distribute it." He claimed that the disciplinary action based on the premise that he was responsible for the confidentiality of the letter was unfounded. He also contended that "the disciplinary action is excessively severe compared to the responsibility."

The court did not accept these claims. The court pointed out, "The plaintiff was well aware of the importance of security duties but still allowed copies of the confidential letter to be distributed," and "the consequences were extremely serious, escalating into a significant political issue due to the leak." Furthermore, the court stated, "The fact that the plaintiff instructed and approved the distribution of copies of the confidential letter to employees makes it difficult to consider the circumstance that he did not directly participate in Mr. K’s leak as a decisive mitigating factor."

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