Despite humiliation of being doused with liquor in front of colleagues, it wasn't until after prosecutors investigated that workplace bullying was acknowledged.

A public institution under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food initially dismissed an incident of workplace harassment as insufficiently substantiated. However, after a thorough investigation by a third-party legal firm, the company was forced to recognize the harassment eight months later. The victim, who was unaware of the lack of grounds for dismissal, continued to work with the perpetrator in the same office, enduring a distressing situation.

The incident involved a supervisor, identified as ㄴ씨, who allegedly threw a plate of "greasy food" at another employee, ㄱ씨, during a company dinner. This incident, among others, led ㄱ씨 to report the harassment to the perpetrator, resulting in a charge of both workplace harassment and assault. However, the perpetrator demanded separation from the victim, and neither disciplinary action nor separation was taken.

The victim underwent extensive psychological treatment and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. The prosecutor's office concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the assault, citing the victim's poor relationship with the perpetrator and their own admission of guilt. The perpetrator, in turn, was fined for assault.

Unlike the company, the investigative body acknowledged the assault and rejected the perpetrator's claim of mutual assault. The victim appealed to the Ministry of Employment and Labor, which led to the company's newly constituted review board recognizing the workplace harassment. During this process, the victim learned that the external legal firm had provided a report to the review board, but did not inform the victim of this information.

The company defended their decision by citing legal limitations on disclosing internal investigation procedures, and suggested that external organizations should be responsible for reviewing such matters.