'Drinking on Duty Proof Shot' Civil Servant Controversy, Official's Explanation Was a Lie

Controversy Over Posting Beer Photo on Personal SNS During Saturday Afternoon Overtime

Center Director Explains, "It Was a Short Shift Under One Hour Without Overtime Pay"

Actual Work Record Shows '3 Hours 30 Minutes,' Increasing Controversy

A public official affiliated with Nam-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, sparked controversy by posting a photo of drinking alcohol while on duty on social media (refer to the article "Drinking photo at work: Public official's misconduct goes too far" published on September 25). It has been revealed that the person responsible for management tried to cover up the incident with lies.

As it was confirmed that the truth was concealed to superficially resolve the issue, the situation is escalating into a controversy over 'protecting one's own people.' There are criticisms that the public officials of Nam-gu Office are in a state of 'total chaos' regarding public service discipline.

The controversy began recently when a post titled "A public official from the same department posted a photo on SNS drinking beer while working" appeared on the online community for office workers, 'Blind.' The photo clearly showed the affiliated administrative welfare center, budget-related laws, and an opened beer can.

The photo was identified as having been posted on the SNS of Mr. A (Grade 8), an employee of an administrative welfare center in Nam-gu, Gwangju, who visited the office on a holiday on the 23rd for overtime work.

As the controversy grew, even being reported to the National Ombudsman, the head of the district office, Mr. B, and Mr. A explained, "We stopped by the office on Saturday the 23rd but only conducted simple tasks and did not spend an hour." They claimed that since it was less than an hour, no overtime pay was received.

This was interpreted to mean that no overtime pay was received and only simple tasks were done, leading to public opinion that only posting on SNS was wrong but the offense was minor.

However, investigation revealed that the explanation that "working hours did not reach one hour" was false. Mr. A arrived at the office at 7:03 PM on the 23rd, clocked in for overtime, and left at 10:33 PM, about 3 hours and 30 minutes later.

Generally, employees who plan to work overtime on holidays submit a prior application on Friday. Then, employees who worked on the holiday get official approval on the next working day, Monday.

Mr. A also submitted an overtime pre-application on Friday and worked overtime, but when the drinking incident became controversial over the weekend via SNS, on Monday the 25th, Mr. B, the head of the district office, did not approve the overtime work and allegedly fabricated the situation with lies. This is why suspicion arose.

Given the situation, criticism is emerging that the district office head, who plays the role of the control tower of the administrative welfare center, chose to hide the truth rather than admit it, and that 'protecting one's own people' has gone too far.

Mr. B said, "Mr. A was already scared on the morning of the 25th and deleted the overtime records, making it impossible to take further action, so one lie led to another. I am only filled with regret."

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