Husband's Suspicious Behavior... Wife Catches Affair Through Google History

Inappropriate Relationship with Fellow Police Officer for Over 2 Years
"Evidence Illegally Collected" Argument Raised but
Court Rules "Wife's Actions Do Not Violate Social Order"

A disciplinary action against a police officer who had an inappropriate relationship with a colleague for over two years was upheld in the appellate court following the first trial.

This is a reference photo to help understand the content and is not directly related to the article. [Image source=Pixabay]

On the 28th, the Jeonju 1st Administrative Division of the Gwangju High Court (Chief Judge Baek Gang-jin) dismissed the appeal filed by Police Officer A against the Jeollabuk-do Provincial Police Agency in the demotion cancellation lawsuit, maintaining the first trial’s ruling.

The court stated, "Although there may be some minor discrepancies, there is no error in supporting the disciplinary reasons," and ruled, "The demotion of the plaintiff is lawful."

From October 4, 2018, to December 28, 2020, Officer A visited the residence of female police officer B, who worked at the same police station, a total of 518 times over more than two years. Among these visits, 237 occurred during overtime hours, and it was discovered that Officer A had improperly received overtime pay.

The first to detect Officer A’s affair was his wife. Suspicious of Officer A, his wife captured daily screenshots of his visit locations and routes stored on the "Google Timeline" and filed a complaint with the Jeonbuk Police Agency.

The Jeonbuk Police Agency’s Ordinary Disciplinary Committee recognized Officer A’s violation of the duty to maintain dignity (improper relationship with the opposite sex) and violation of the duty of diligence and obedience (improper receipt of overtime pay and travel expenses), and demoted him one rank from Police Lieutenant to Police Sergeant.

The photo is not related to any specific expression in the article.

However, Officer A opposed this disciplinary action by filing a lawsuit to cancel the demotion. Earlier, Officer A’s side claimed, "It is true that I slept at B’s house, brought her breakfast or medicine, and watched movies or traveled alone with her, but I did not have an improper relationship." They also argued that the Google Timeline was evidence collected illegally.

However, the first trial court recognized the evidence, ruling that Officer A’s wife’s collection of her husband’s Google Timeline, who lived in the same house, did not violate public order. The court ruled against the plaintiff, stating, "Considering that Officer A is married with children, the facts admitted by Officer A alone make it difficult to view the relationship as proper, and the degree of misconduct is by no means minor."

Subsequently, Officer A appealed the first trial ruling in March, but the appellate court upheld the original judgment.

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