Seoul Administrative Court. /Courtesy of News1

A ruling was issued that the government's decision to cancel the acceptance of a candidate for national public service due to past sexual offense convictions is valid.

According to the legal community on the 6th, the 7th Administrative Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Chief Judge Lee Joo-young) recently ruled against plaintiff A in the first instance of a lawsuit challenging the disqualification and non-appointment decision filed against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A was registered as a candidate after passing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' general administrative recruitment exam in August 2023. However, it later emerged that A had a criminal record for a past sexual offense. He was sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for two years, in 2016 for violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Adolescents against Sexual Abuse (attempted forcible molestation). He was also fined 700,000 won in 2022 for violating the Special Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes, etc. (obscene acts using telecommunications). All of A's sentences are final.

Upon confirming these facts, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated, "Considering the seriousness of sexual offenses against minors, the fact that similar crimes have continued until recently, and the specificity of the position intended for appointment, it is judged that fulfilling duties as a public official is difficult," and took the disqualification and non-appointment action.

A contested this, but the court deemed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' decision not to employ A as lawful.

The court noted, "There is sufficient reason to determine that a plaintiff with a history of sexual offenses against unspecified individuals would find it difficult to perform duties that involve public interactions, and the judgment of the appointing authority must be respected as much as possible," adding that "the public interest of enhancing social trust in public office sought to be achieved through this decision outweighs the disadvantages A would suffer as a result of this decision."

However, the court found that the disqualification action against the candidate could not be justified based on actions taken after acquiring candidate status.

A appealed against this ruling.