2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on May 4, 1989 and promoted to the Inspector on July 1, 2008, and served in B police station investigation from February 7, 2010 to February 17, 2013, and served in C police box from July 17, 2013.

B. On July 9, 2014, the General Disciplinary Committee of Police Officers in Seoul B police station decided on the dismissal and disciplinary action charges of the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 130,000 x two times) on the grounds for disciplinary action as follows. Accordingly, on July 10, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to dismiss the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 56, Article 63, and Article 78(1)1 through 3 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 14 and Article 16 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency, and imposition of disciplinary action charges of KRW 260,000 on the Plaintiff.

Around May 2012, the Plaintiff committed an act of impairing the dignity of police officials by doing so, such as having sexual intercourses with D, which was a complainant of the case investigated by the Plaintiff, and conducted a financial transaction of KRW 15,257 million over 37 times from August 2012 to September 2013, which was a duty-related person, between D and D.

On May 2012, the Plaintiff, a suspect of the instant case investigated, committed an act of impairing the dignity by doing unsound sexual intercourse, such as E and E, golf, etc., and received entertainment in a way of not paying 1.30,00 won of meal expenses after eating at the food house operated by E, after sending the instant case to the prosecution.

In May 2009, the Plaintiff continued to have a meeting with F, which was known to the Plaintiff from May 2009, and had been engaged in several activities, such as telephone conversations, text messages, and monetary transactions, thereby impairing the dignity.

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review of an appeal, but the appeals review committee for the Ministry of Security and Public Administration dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on October 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 19, 54 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful