감봉3월처분취소
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 was appointed as a policeman on April 30, 2010, and was promoted to the Superintendent on March 11, 2014, and served in B police station from July 9, 2014 to B (hereinafter “B”) as a person in charge of weapons.
From September 2, 2015 to September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff performed the duties of supplying firearms and ammunition, distributing live bullets, verifying the quantity of firearms and ammunition, checking the amount of live bullets, and the amount of remaining live bullets after firearms and shootings in the second half of the year (hereinafter “instant shooting training”).
During the second half of September 2, 2015, which was held in the indoor shooting range of Seoul C, between September 2 to September 4, 2015:
9. 4. The plaintiff neglected to perform his duties, such as not checking only 1,400 large ball cartridgess and checking the last number of ball cartridgess, and the second verification person E and the third verification person (F) of the fact that the "written confirmation of the recovery of ball cartridges" was sent to the police officer in charge of the police officer in charge of the police officer's direction, and again transferred from D on the same day, it is necessary to clarify the return of ball cartridges and ammunition in the presence of supervisor, such as inspector and control officer, after the shooting is terminated. However, the plaintiff should finally confirm that D's circumstances " used 188 large ball cartridgess," and the plaintiff neglected to perform his/her duties, such as not verifying the last number of ball cartridgess after checking 1,400 large cartridgess.
9. From around 19.M. C around 19.M. to remove recyclable waste, etc., we discovered paper cases containing 35 ball cartridges during work, and criticize or report 112, thereby decipating the honor and dignity of the police.
B. On November 12, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension from office for two months to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1)1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act due to the following reasons.
C. On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal review, and the appeals review committee reduces the amount of suspension from office for two months to the Plaintiff.