beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.04.01 2014구합639

해임처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Since being appointed as a patrol officer on June 17, 1989, the Plaintiff promoted to the police officer on March 1, 201, and served at the 2 patrol team of the Jeonju Police Station from April 17, 2012.

Around October 31, 2011, the Plaintiff, as a police official, has a duty to comply with various laws and subordinate statutes and to maintain dignity regardless of whether he/she is within his/her duties, entered into the first sexual intercourse with C, a family-related person C (hereinafter “related person”) and the Plaintiff’s opinion park within the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and for one year thereafter, had two to three times per week in the vehicle located in the place where there is no human resources with her mother, such as hernam water and her valley, and had a sexual intercourse between two and two times per week from October 2012. From around 23:00, the Plaintiff continued to have a sexual intercourse between one and nine times per week at the same place, and had a sound sexual intercourse between the police officer and the Plaintiff’s family-related police officer’s injury on the ground that he/she did not receive the Plaintiff’s telephone, and continued to have a sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff’s family-related police officer from around 23:00 on August 19, 2013.

B. On September 2, 2013, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff from office in accordance with Article 78(1)1 through 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Good Faith) and 63 (Duty of Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act as the grounds for the following disciplinary action.

C. On December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted revocation of the instant disposition to the appeals review committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration, and the appeals review committee of this case is deemed to be all aware of the grounds for the instant disciplinary action, but is somewhat excessive.