Disciplinary Records Without 'Sexual Harassment Victim'... Supreme Court Rules It Does Not Violate Perpetrator's Right to Defense

Prosecutor Investigator Dismissed for Repeated Sexual Harassment of Colleague... "Violation of Right to Defense" Lawsuit
Court: "Concerns of Secondary Harm, Need to Be Cautious in Disclosing Specific Personal Information"

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that even if the disciplinary documents have the victim's real name and personal information redacted, it does not constitute a violation of the accused's right to defense if the circumstances of suspicion regarding the disciplinary subject are specified during the disciplinary process of a prosecutor’s investigator who was dismissed for repeatedly sexually harassing and verbally abusing female colleagues.

The Supreme Court’s 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Dong-won) announced on the 7th that it overturned the lower court’s ruling in favor of former prosecutor’s investigator A, who filed a lawsuit against the Prosecutor General seeking cancellation of his dismissal, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

A, who served as a prosecutor’s assistant from July to October 2018 at Jeju District Prosecutors’ Office handling personnel affairs, sexually harassed female staff, investigators, and junior investigators by saying things like, “These days Investigator B likes me, so she dresses up like that.”

Additionally, abusing his superior position and authority, he came to the duty room drunk on a junior investigator’s duty day, bought alcohol, ordered chicken, started drinking at the duty room table, used foul language, smoked, and spat on the floor, violating the obligation to maintain dignity. For these reasons, he was dismissed in May of the following year. Dissatisfied, A filed a lawsuit.

The first trial dismissed A’s claim, but the second trial recognized procedural defects in the dismissal, stating, “Although the plaintiff disputes each disciplinary charge, the victims were not identified from the disciplinary procedure to the administrative litigation procedure, depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to impeach the victims’ testimonies, thus infringing on the plaintiff’s right to defense.”

However, the Supreme Court’s judgment differed. The court noted that in cases of sexual harassment victims, there is a need for greater caution in disclosing specific personal information such as real names due to concerns about secondary damage, and thus it was appropriate not to record the victims’ identities.

The court ruled, “If each disciplinary charge is specified enough to be distinguishable from one another, and it is recognized that the disciplinary subject can sufficiently know the specific details of the disciplinary reasons and the victims, then even if the victims’ ‘real names’ and other specific personal information are not disclosed to the disciplinary subject, such circumstances alone cannot be considered to cause substantial hindrance to the disciplinary subject’s exercise of the right to defense.”

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