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

A. The Plaintiff, as a doctor’s degree of engineering, is appointed as a facility officer (class V special finance officer) on June 1, 2006. From July 9, 2007 to December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff served in the department E of the government office building management office from July 9, 2007 to December 31, 208. A state public official who served in the Ministry of Public Administration and Security F from January 1, 2009 to February 24, 2009.

B. The Defendant removed the Plaintiff, as stated in the purport of the instant disposition, on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 61 (Duty of Integrity) and 63 (Duty of Integrity) of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 8996 of March 28, 2008; hereinafter the same) and Article 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act in relation to the instant case (hereinafter the “instant disposition”), on the ground that the Plaintiff’s performance of evaluation duties constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, in violation of Articles 56 (Duty of Integrity), 61 (Duty of Integrity) and 63 (Duty of Integrity) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition seeking revocation of the instant disposition against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on March 3, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Absence of grounds for disciplinary action

A) The crime of taking property in breach of trust is established when an illegal solicitation is received in the position of a person who administers another’s business. However, since the Plaintiff contacted with the employees of the construction business prior to being selected as an evaluation committee for the instant construction business, and did not receive an illegal solicitation, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is not established

B) The Plaintiff did not expect any consideration, and there is no grounds for disciplinary action, as it conducted an assessment according to its technical judgment.

2) The instant disposition is against the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality, and is unlawful in light of the amount of money received by the Plaintiff, the fact that local public officials and educational public officials related to the instant case were sentenced to a fine in the relevant criminal judgment, the fact that public officials and educational public officials were subject to minor disposition, such as a three-month suspension from office, and the Plaintiff’s contribution

B. Relevant provisions

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the attached Table.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 2007, the Plaintiff registered as a candidate for the said bidder upon the request of the said constructor to the effect that the said constructor participated in the said bidding because the said constructor participated in the design bid assessment of the instant construction project from an employee of the A construction company. The qualification requirements for the said evaluators are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

2) On November 15, 2007, the Plaintiff received an illegal solicitation from the said employee to the effect that, notwithstanding Article 24(3) of the Regulations on the Management of Construction Technology Development and Management, etc., which prohibits prior contact between a participant company and a candidate for evaluation members and prior design explanation at his/her own house, the Plaintiff becomes an evaluation member at A construction company’s employees, and that at around 05:00 on the same day he/she moved a model taxi prepared by the said employee to Chuncheon City, and that it would serve as an evaluation member on the design drawings submitted by the said employee.

3) The Plaintiff, while performing the duty of qualified review and evaluation of design drawings submitted by bidders at the meeting of the Council for Deliberation and Evaluation of the Basic Design of the instant construction project held in Switzerland-si on the same day, has no big differences in points since the bid price or construction experience in the design and package deal tender is based on data objectively revealed, etc. On the other hand, the design examination score is required to give a difference of 15% by item, while the design examination score is also required to give a difference of 15% by item, and it is well known that the subjective evaluation of the evaluation committee has a critical impact on the determination of the evaluation committee member, and is selected as an evaluation committee member, the Plaintiff shall perform the evaluation duty from an objective and fair perspective, notwithstanding the foregoing, by giving more points than all items to the competitor in accordance with the purpose of the illegal solicitation by the employees of the A construction enterprise and giving points to the competitor so that the points may be different.

4) On December 1, 2007, the Plaintiff issued 9 million won in cash in a verification color room to the effect that the Plaintiff gave a high score to A’s employees on the A’s consortium at the instant coffee shop located in his house, and that the Plaintiff assisted the A’s consortium to win a contract for construction.

5) As above, the Plaintiff was indicted for committing a crime of acquiring KRW 10 million by an illegal solicitation in connection with his duties as an appraiser for the qualified review and evaluation of the basic design of the instant construction project, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 1 year and a surcharge of KRW 10 million for six months as a result of a crime of taking property in breach of trust in the Chuncheon District Court (2009Gohap34) on April 24, 2009.

6) The Plaintiff appealed to the purport that the amount of the received money is nine million won or more by misunderstanding of facts and claiming unreasonable sentencing. The appellate court (2009273) recognized the grounds for each of the above appeals to have been sentenced to a fine of KRW 50 million and sentenced to a fine of KRW 9 million. The said judgment was dismissed and finalized by the Prosecutor’s appeal (2010Do1500). The grounds for sentencing of the said appellate court judgment are as follows.

Although the Defendant is strongly required to perform the public duties of planning, deliberation, and evaluation of G construction projects ordered by Chuncheon City, it is recognized that the fairness of the above bidding has been harmed by receiving money and other valuables in return for illegal solicitation. However, when the Defendant was selected as a bidder, the Defendant committed the crime of taking property in breach of trust and evidence in this case with the intent to systematically and systematically manage relevant experts in mind not only the relevant tender but also the tender that can be conducted in the future, with the intention of participating in the bidding as a bidder, so that the Defendant would not be friendly or hostile. The Defendant did not actively demand the consideration. The Defendant did not call the above money to the construction employee of A; the Defendant did not have any criminal record of the Defendant; the Defendant has faithfully entrusted the Defendant with his duties; the Defendant has faithfully entrusted the Defendant with his duties; the Defendant has lost his status when the suspension of execution has become final and conclusive; and the Defendant has been determined by taking into account the following circumstances: the Defendant’s personality and behavior, the Defendant’s circumstances, the circumstances of the instant crime, etc. under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

7) In addition to the Plaintiff, other persons who received money and valuables from the Government-invested research institutes, national universities, and local governments were affiliated with the government-invested research institutes, national universities, and local governments. Of them, local public officials B whose amount of money and valuables was recognized as 20 million won was subject to a disposition of suspension from office for three months, and professors C belonging to H University were subject to a disposition of suspension from office for three months from the total amount of H University.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the result of fact-finding conducted by the H University and Jeonnam-do Office

D. Determination

1) Whether grounds for disciplinary action exist

The establishment of the crime of taking property in breach of trust does not necessarily require an illegal act in accordance with the purport of receiving a request. In addition, as seen above, insofar as the Plaintiff moved to Chuncheon-si after being commissioned as an evaluation committee member as an evaluation committee member and received an illegal request, the crime of taking property in breach of trust is recognized against the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s act of receiving money by registering as an evaluation committee member on the basis of his status and career as a public official in receipt of an illegal request, and the act of receiving money by itself constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith, integrity, and dignity maintenance under the former State Public Officials Act. Therefore

2) Whether the discretion of disciplinary action is deviates or abused

A) In principle, when a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the person subject to disciplinary action is placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take disciplinary action. However, if the disciplinary measure taken by the person having authority to take disciplinary action is deemed to have abused the discretion assigned to the person having authority to take disciplinary action, it is illegal.

If a disciplinary action against a public official has considerably lost validity in light of social norms, it should be determined based on a case-by-case case where it is deemed that the content of the disciplinary action is objectively unreasonable when comprehensively taking into account various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct that served as the grounds for the disciplinary action, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action, criteria for a disciplinary action, etc. In addition, even if the exercise of the authority to take disciplinary action is left at the discretion of the appointing authority, it is against the public interest principles that should exercise the authority to take disciplinary action for public interest purposes, or violates the principle of proportionality by selecting an excessive disciplinary action that has lost balance compared to the degree of the misconduct generally used as the grounds for disciplinary action, or by selecting a disciplinary action that has lost fairness in the same degree without reasonable grounds, such disciplinary action shall be deemed unlawful as it goes beyond the bounds of discretionary authority (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Du6951, Nov. 26, 201; 200Du704, Aug. 24, 2001).

B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the health team, the facts acknowledged as above, and the purport of the entire pleadings, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was considered together, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to be excessively harsh or contrary to equity because it considerably lacks validity under the social norms, and thus, goes beyond the scope of the discretion of disciplinary action assigned to the person having authority over disciplinary action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① Since a state public official’s demand for the fairness in the performance of public duties is high as a servant of all citizens, the act of a state public official to receive property in exchange for an illegal request in relation to his/her duties that he/she takes charge of in relation to his/her status is serious harm to the people’s trust, and thus, in itself constitutes a crime that is highly likely to be subject to criticism. Furthermore, as in this case, the act of giving and receiving unjust solicitation and money related thereto related to the evaluation duties is an act that may cause another competitor to lose the opportunity for evaluation in accordance with fair standards.

② The Regulations on Handling of Cheating by Public Officials (Presidential Directive No. 247) merely prescribes the criteria for responding to a disciplinary decision of a State public official, and there is no external effect of binding force on the court or citizens. However, in order to establish the discipline and realize a clean public service society, it shall be determined according to reasonable standards depending on the type and seriousness of the misconduct case in order to establish the discipline of public service and realize a clean public service society. Even according to such standards, if the public official receives at least three million won in relation to his/her duties, he/she is required to make a heavy disciplinary decision without regard to whether he/she has made any unfair disposition. The amount of the money received by the Plaintiff reaches nine million won in excess of such standards.

③ In the case of other evaluators who committed the same misconduct as the instant case other than the Plaintiff, the evaluation of the agency affiliated with the instant misconduct may sufficiently vary depending on the nature of the agency, the content of the relevant work, the circumstances leading up to the act, and the history of the reward and punishment. The content and degree of disciplinary action against employees of each agency may be selected within the scope of discretion of disciplinary action, taking into account all the circumstances into account. Therefore, it is difficult for evaluators other than the Plaintiff to view that the instant disposition is contrary to the equity.

4. In the relevant criminal judgment, where a sentence of suspended execution becomes final and conclusive against the Plaintiff, a fine shall be sentenced in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff will be retired ipso facto pursuant to Article 69 of the former State Public Officials Act. However, even in cases where there are grounds for disciplinary action not automatically dismissed against a State public official, the person having authority to take disciplinary action, including removal

3) Sub-determination

The instant disposition is legitimate because it is difficult to view that the grounds for disciplinary action are sufficiently recognized and the disciplinary power has been abused.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.

Judges Cho Dai-soo

Judges’ Trade Name

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.