2. The Defendant’s disposition of suspension from office for one month against the Plaintiff on February 24, 2016 is revoked.

3.

A. On November 2, 1987, the Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman and promoted to the Inspector on March 1, 2008, and served in B police station from July 18, 2015 to February 10, 2016, and served in B police station D District Unit from February 11, 2016.

B. On February 12, 2016, the chief of the Ansan Police Station requested a resolution of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff committed sexual harassment as stated in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary cause”) with regard to the ordinary disciplinary committee for police officers of the Yongsan Police Station (hereinafter “instant disciplinary committee”), and that the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith provided in Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act and the duty to maintain dignity provided in Article 63 of the same Act.

On February 19, 2016, the instant disciplinary committee sent obscene videos (hereinafter “instant misconduct”). Around January 27, 2016, around 16:00 at the B police station’s office, the Plaintiff sent to 45 employees and investigation, who were personally in custody on one’s own computer for its own business purposes (hereinafter “instant videos”). While the Plaintiff vindicates that the instant videos were lost, it is sufficient to deem that the Plaintiff caused sexual humiliation to female employees who perused the instant videos due to the instant misconduct, on the ground that he/she violated the duty of good faith and the duty of maintenance of dignity, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure for one month suspension from office pursuant to Article 78(1)1 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act.

C. Accordingly, on February 24, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disciplinary action for one month of suspension from office (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff, attaching a written resolution on disciplinary action by the instant disciplinary committee.

On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Ministry of Personnel Management, but the appeals review committee on June 24, 2016 constituted sexual harassment under Article 2 subparag. 3 (d) of the National Human Rights Commission Act (hereinafter “sexual harassment under the Act”), and the instant disposition is deemed to constitute sexual harassment under Article 2 subparag. 3 (d) of the National Human Rights Commission Act.