2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On January 5, 2001, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on December 10, 201, and served in B police station C District from February 1, 2015 to July 20, 2017.

B. On July 20, 2017, around 10:03, at the toilet of the B police station’s integrated detention room No. 3 (Detention room). On July 20, 2017, a prisoner who was detained due to murder (hereinafter “the deceased”) was discovered to have first brued into the hospital, and was sent back to the hospital, but the case of death was eventually caused three days after the death.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

B The chief of the police station requested a heavy disciplinary decision against the Plaintiff on July 27, 2017, on the ground that the instant accident occurred as a result of neglecting the custody of the decedent by neglecting the custody of the decedent, such as visiting rooms, using the Internet, etc., as a fixed monitor worker in the above detention room from 09:0 to 11:00 on the date of the instant accident, the head of the police station decided that the Plaintiff’s act was against Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and 57 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act, and the Defendant decided “one month in suspension” against the Plaintiff on August 7, 2017, as the result of the disciplinary deliberation against the Plaintiff on August 7, 2017.

8. A one-month suspension order was issued against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On August 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal review seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Ministry of Personnel Management, which was dismissed by the said committee on November 23, 201.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 through 11, and 21, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion ① is within the detention room.