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

The plaintiff who was working in the office of the Gu.

A. On August 17, 1985, the Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on September 1, 2008, and was promoted to the Inspector on September 1, 2008. From August 27, 2013 to February 1, 2015, the Seoul Eastdong Police Station’s living safety and the head of the B District District B District District Group 4 team, and from February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff served as the head of the B District District Police Center from February 2, 2015.

B. On July 13, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff “three months of salary reduction” in accordance with Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act, on the ground that “The fact stated in attached Table 1 is recognized and it violates Articles 56, 57, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act.”

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”) C.

On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request with the appeals review committee to review the disciplinary action of this case (e.g., confirmation of invalidity and revocation), and the appeals review committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on October 16, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 40, 41 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. A witness questioning requested by the Plaintiff (Article 13(3) of the Police Officers Disciplinary Decree) was not conducted by the disciplinary committee regarding disciplinary procedures.

The failure of the inspector to give the plaintiff a notice of the attendance of the disciplinary committee to give notice of the reason for the disciplinary action is in violation of the principle of disturbance.

Since the Defendant rendered a disadvantageous transfer to the Plaintiff, the instant disciplinary action was against the principle of res judicata.

B. There was no ground for disciplinary action that the Plaintiff did not commit the act of misconduct as shown in the attached Table 1, and there was a justifiable reason to conduct such remarks and actions.

C. Considering the fact that improper Plaintiff, as a police officer, worked in good faith, the instant disciplinary action was taken by making a false or exaggerated statement to gather the Plaintiff, and that it violates the principle of trust protection and equality, the instant disciplinary action should be mitigated to the extent that it is an unwritten warning.