견책처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a police officer who was appointed as a police officer on November 30, 1991 and served in Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Police Agency B from July 15, 2016 after promotion to the police officer on June 1, 2014.
B. On December 30, 2016, the Defendant violated Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act on the following grounds, and deemed that the Plaintiff constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) 1 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act, and thus, the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action for one month of salary reduction.
[Grounds for Disciplinary Action] No public official shall commit any act detrimental to his/her dignity, regardless of whether it is for his/her duties.
On January 1, 2016, while working in the Jeju Dong-dong Police Station C District, the Plaintiff was friendly in dealing with civil petitions such as illegal medical acts reported by related persons D (hereinafter “related persons”) (hereinafter “related persons”) and utilization of duty-free oil, etc., while working in the Jeju Dong-dong Police Station C District. Even though the related persons were aware that they were women, the Plaintiff continued to engage in so-called an unsound teaching system, such as the Plaintiff’s satis, satis, satis, and satis, during the late night hours. On July 10, 2016, around 22:00, the Plaintiff damaged the Plaintiff’s dignity by threateninging the relevant persons to satis and satisfy with the relevant persons.”
C. On January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review. On March 22, 2017, the Ministry of Personnel Management rendered a decision to change the said one month of salary reduction to reprimand on the ground that the disciplinary action of the original disposition is somewhat heavy.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists over a disciplinary action which has been changed to reprimand by the decision of examination of the above petition (which is the ground for recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 11, 12, and 15, Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. According to Article 9(3) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Police Officers with procedural defects, the Plaintiff’s request for a disciplinary decision is sufficient investigation into the grounds for disciplinary action.