A ruling has been issued by the first instance court stating that the prosecution's decision to suspend the investigator for two months is justifiable in relation to the escape of a wanted individual while the investigator was absent. This decision accepted the prosecution's claim that the investigator failed to properly hand over the wanted individual to another investigator.
According to the legal community on the 1st, the Second Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (presided over by Judge Go Eun-seol) dismissed the lawsuit filed by Prosecutor A against the Attorney General seeking the cancellation of the suspension.
A has been a prosecutor for more than 20 years and worked at the Eastern District Prosecutors' Office in Busan since 2021. A also managed New Recruit duties while working in the execution department in 2023. A's role was to monitor individuals transferred from the police to ensure they were properly handed over to detention facilities.
On July 7, 2023, around 9 a.m., A received B, who had been arrested for failing to pay taxi fare. B was already wanted for failing to pay a fine of 11,899,000 won and was arrested again for not paying the taxi fare.
After being arrested, B allegedly claimed to A that the fine had been paid. However, A went out for lunch without confirming the payment. Before leaving, A entrusted the management of B to female investigator C, advising her, "Do not engage with B while I’m at lunch."
However, while A was out for lunch, B escaped by taking a taxi. As a result of this incident, A faced investigation by the Supreme Public Prosecutors' Office but reportedly did not comply with the attendance inquiry. It is known that A cited reasons such as a change in duties, psychiatric treatment, annual leave, and sick leave. Consequently, on September 8 of that year, the prosecution removed A from their position.
A filed a complaint with the Ministry of Personnel Management's Appeal Commission regarding the decision. The commission partially accepted A's complaint, reducing the suspension to two months. Nonetheless, A appealed this decision, seeking complete cancellation through administrative litigation.
However, the court did not accept A's assertions. The court determined that it was inappropriate for A to assign the management of male B, a New Recruit, to only one female investigator, C. Furthermore, it stated that A failed to properly hand over basic information and details regarding the situation that arose after B's arrest to C.
The court noted, "A should have informed C about the fact that B was wanted for failing to pay a fine and that B claimed to have paid the fine afterward, even if these facts were unverified." It added, "However, A did not communicate any information to C other than telling her not to engage with B."