견책처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on December 16, 2002, and was promoted to March 31, 2015. From July 11, 2012, the Seoul B police station was serving in the 112 comprehensive situation room.
On September 12, 2015, around 21:12, at around 112, 2015, a man reported on the following: (a) “A woman-friendly Gu is going to her house after having her mother and her telephone; (b) her mother knife knife and waiting for the death of a woman-friendly Gu” (hereinafter “the instant report”); (c) however, as the dispatched police officers were at the same time as the domestic violence report (hereinafter “the instant separate report”), the remaining on-site sending of the report, which was mistaken for the same case as the domestic violence report (hereinafter “the instant separate report”), led to the occurrence of a case in which the mother of the said male her flife of the female-friendly Gu flife with her mother.” (hereinafter “the instant murder case”).
On October 30, 2015, following a resolution by the General Disciplinary Committee for Police Officers in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant took disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the following disciplinary grounds were violated Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act (Duty of Fidelity).
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). 【The Plaintiff’s ground for the instant disciplinary action】 In relation to the instant murder case while serving as a staff member at the 112 general situation room of the SeoulB Police Station, the Plaintiff:
A. On September 12, 2015, at the time of receipt of the instant report, where the perpetrator’s deadly weapons were verified at the time of receipt of the instant report, the perpetrator’s order should be omitted even though he/she had to carry with him/her such weapons in comparison with such fact (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”);
B. In a situation where it is deemed that multiple reporters made duplicate reports, the instant report did not take an appropriate initial action for the instant report, such as failing to directly confirm or instruct the instant reporter to check the phone when the patrol car arrives at the site of the instant report in accordance with the work manual, and eventually, the instant report was delayed mobilization.