Court upholds demotion of diplomat who accused colleagues of spying for China

A Seoul court has upheld the demotion of a former deputy consul general at the Korean Consulate General in Shanghai who accused colleagues of spying for China over a Chinese-made electric vehicle and verbally abused a superior.

The Seoul Administrative Court on Aug. 26 dismissed all claims in a lawsuit the former deputy consul general filed against the foreign minister, seeking to cancel two disciplinary measures: removal from post and demotion.

The court ruled that the diplomat had seriously violated the duties of a foreign service officer, so the disciplinary action could not be canceled.

A consulate general is a Korean diplomatic office in a major foreign city that handles consular services and other government work. It is led by a consul general, who serves as head of the mission. The deputy consul general is the second-highest official.

The diplomat was removed from post in January 2025 and demoted in May that year. The Foreign Service Officials' Disciplinary Committee cited seven grounds for punishment, including violations of the duty of obedience, the duty of sincerity and the duty to maintain dignity.

The case began when the deputy consul general started accusing staff at the Shanghai consulate general of spying.

Around May 2024, the deputy consul general said an electric vehicle driven by a consul at the mission was suspicious and ordered that the car be barred from entering the premises. An email was then sent to the ministry's inspection office.

"A consul and a staff member appear to have engaged in espionage by bringing a [Chinese-made] electric vehicle into the consulate general," the email read.

The deputy consul general sought to investigate the vehicle, but the consul general said the mission could not approve such an investigation.

The deputy consul general then ordered a vice consul to look into the car anyway, without permission. When the vice consul said an investigation seemed difficult, the deputy consul general suggested the vice consul could face disciplinary action.

The vice consul reported the deputy consul general for workplace abuse. The deputy consul general responded by accusing the vice consul of embezzlement.

The spy allegations also led to open conflict with the consul general. While the two were discussing the consul, the consul general asked, "Why are you bringing that up again?"

"Then are you a spy too, consul general?" the deputy consul general replied.

The deputy consul general also addressed the consul general by name, saying, "So you're looking into my background, is that it? Fine, okay." The remark was made in the informal form of Korean normally used with close friends or people younger or lower in rank. Using it toward a superior in a Korean workplace is considered highly disrespectful.

The deputy consul general also shouted at the consul general in front of other staff.

After the disciplinary committee handed down the heavy punishment, the diplomat filed two appeals with the Appeals Commission of the Ministry of Personnel Management.

The commission did not accept one of the seven grounds cited by the disciplinary committee, but rejected the appeals, saying "the remaining grounds alone are sufficient to recognize the validity of the demotion."

The diplomat then sued, arguing that the punishment was too severe.

The court rejected the claims.

"[The former deputy consul general] has a duty to obey the official orders of the consul general, who is the head of mission, and to respect the head of mission's character," the court said. "[The] misconduct is a serious violation of the duties of obedience and of maintaining dignity as a foreign service officer, and is highly blameworthy. The disciplinary measure of demotion cannot be seen as having markedly lost validity by social standards.

"[The former deputy consul general] forced an investigation that the head of mission had not approved, and without reasonable grounds called the head of mission and other mission staff Chinese spies," the court added. "After being reported for workplace abuse, [the former deputy consul general] made baseless allegations against the person who filed the report, causing secondary harm."

The diplomat had argued for a reduced penalty, citing a commendation from the minister of foreign affairs and trade. The court rejected this, noting that the rules allow a reduced penalty only for commendations from the prime minister or higher.

BY JO SU-BIN   [[email protected]]