On May 4, 1989, at the time of the Plaintiff’s holding office as the head of Gun, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s transfer of money constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78(1)2 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act by delivering KRW 1,50,000 (two copies of cashier’s checks issued at Cho Ho Bank Branch Office), which was issued from Nonparty 2, to the head of Gun upon the request of Nonparty 2, the director of Gun affairs division. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff was not subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s transfer of money constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78(1)2 and 78(3) of the State Public Officials Act, and that Nonparty 2, the subordinate staff of Do governor, who was the head of Gun affairs division, was unaware of several times, and that Nonparty 2, who was aware of his motive and the Plaintiff’s transfer of money during the process of promotion to the Plaintiff’s office.

However, as recognized by the court below, it is clear that the act of delivering money and valuables to the subordinate employees together with the personnel solicitation of the public official violates the duty of integrity of the public official as a misconduct that disturbs the public official's discipline, and Article 2 (1) of the Rules on Disciplinary Punishment, etc. of Public Officials (Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 251) of the Rules on Disciplinary Punishment, Etc. (Ordinance No. 251) provides that the removal of the plaintiff from office for the reason of the above misconduct shall be made if the defendant is seriously and intentionally committed the violation of the duty of integrity on the basis of disciplinary disposition, and the removal, gross negligence, or intentional misconduct shall be made if the intention is excessive, and Article 4 provides that the dismissal of the defendant shall not be made if the defendant committed the misconduct, and it shall not be made for the reason that the dismissal of the defendant's removal from office is made for the reason of the violation of the duty's nature and the contents of the misconduct, the criteria for disciplinary action, and the purpose of disciplinary action, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of discretionary authority as stated in its reasoning.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.