징계처분취소소송
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. After being appointed as a patrol officer on February 25, 1995, the Plaintiff served as the head of the Cheongbuk Police Agency B police station investigation and criminal third team leader from January 24, 2017 to May 18, 2017.
From January 24, 2017 to May 18, 2017, the Plaintiff is a police officer who has been in charge of an offense, such as sexual traffic, etc. against the business owner E, who works as the B police station investigation and criminal 3 team leader, and who was in charge of the crime of sexual traffic, etc. against the business owner E incheon-si C.
① On January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff received the case from B police station investigation and criminal team guards F to receive the said case, including E, from the Defendant, and received the reduced G solicitation for the said case.
On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff paid in advance the alcohol value of 320,000 won by using his/her credit card at around 20:32 after the opening of the criminal team under his/her jurisdiction, and at around 20:35 on the same day, the Plaintiff revoked the alcohol value paid in advance by telephoneing to the said reduction G at around 20:35 on the same day, and thereafter, the Plaintiff received entertainment equivalent to the same amount by requiring the said reduction G to pay in lieu of KRW 40,000 of the alcohol value of 40,000 won per day on behalf of the said reduction G.
3. 3. 3. The suspect interrogation protocol (a statement to reverse the previous argument) prepared to the effect that I did not cut off “D studs”, and the criminal case was processed unfairly by binding it on investigation records and making it favorable to the above E.
(2) Police officers who fail to report in writing to the head of a relevant institution related to the improper solicitation shall be notified that it is the improper solicitation upon receipt of the improper solicitation in connection with the case and clearly express their intent to refuse it, and if the same improper solicitation is resumed, they shall be reported in writing
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff, at the end of January 2017, stated, “The case involving E in the case involving Nice is being handled, and I would not promptly transfer studal harassment to E.”