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

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on July 13, 1991, and was promoted to the police officer on December 1, 2012, and thereafter served in the Busan Geum-gu Police Station Security and Traffic Safety System B from March 3, 2008.

B. On July 26, 2013, the Busan Regional Police Agency's General Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff under each subparagraph of Article 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter "the instant disposition") on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 59 (Duty of Good Faith and Impartiality), Article 61 (Duty of Integrity) and Article 63 (Duty of Integrity). On the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 78 (1) of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter "the instant disposition") 2, 3, 5, 1, 200, 200, 200, 2000, 3,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 2-2, 3, and Gap’s evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) As to the ground for disciplinary action No. 1

The Defendant deems that the Plaintiff violated an official duty under Article 59 of the State Public Officials Act (the duty of kind and fairness). In order to take the violation of an official duty under Article 59 of the State Public Officials Act as grounds for disciplinary action, the Plaintiff must be in the course of performing his duty. However, since the Plaintiff did not have been performing his duty at the time of voluntary returning home, the violation of an official duty under Article 59 of the State Public Officials Act (the duty of kind and fairness) premised on the fact that the Plaintiff had been performing his duty cannot be a ground for disciplinary action.

B) As to the second ground for disciplinary action

Article 61 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that the plaintiff has violated his duty under Article 61 (Duty of Integrity) of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 61 (2) of the State Public Officials Act provides that "the plaintiff has received money or valuables in relation to his duty, and Article 61 (2) of the State Public Officials Act receives "donations" from "public officials under his/her jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff is merely receiving five million won in return for his/her reduced statement to avoid the fact that he/she was under investigation as a compensation or disciplinary suspect, and thus, he/she cannot be viewed as having a relation between his/her duties and receiving money. Further, at the time of receiving five million won, the plaintiff is not a "affiliated under his/her jurisdiction" under the jurisdiction of the Geumcheon-gu Police Station, the Kim Dong-dong Police Station, and the reason why the plaintiff paid five million won to the plaintiff is a "compensation or consolation money for the plaintiff's resignation due to his/her wrong act," and thus, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the duty under Article 61 (1) of the Disciplinary Reason.

2) A deviation from and abuse of discretionary power;

Even if there were grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, taking account of all the circumstances such as the Plaintiff’s faithfully served as police officers for 22 years by being commended 25 times during the 22-year period, the removal disposition that deprives the Plaintiff of his status as a public official, as well as retirement allowances, is too excessive, and is contrary to the equity with the existing other cases, the instant disposition is unlawful as it violates the principle of proportionality, etc., and thus is in violation of the discretionary authority.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

1) As to the absence of the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1

Article 59 of the State Public Officials Act provides that a public official shall perform his duties fairly, and the above duties include cases where the public official in question is closely related to the act of the public official in question and acts of actual management even if the public official in question does not have the right to decide on his duties, and even if the plaintiff was in office, he is a person with the status of the public official in charge of the police, and is to handle duties fairly. However, it constitutes a violation of the fair duty under Article 59 of the State Public Officials Act to arbitrarily invalid C by exercising his de facto authority.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B) With respect to the absence of the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2 (the defendant did not state a separate claim as to the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2 in rendering the disposition of this case and stated the whole Article 61 of the State Public Officials Act. However, according to the above facts of recognition and the whole purport of oral argument, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant applied Article 61(1) of the State Public Officials Act to the grounds for disciplinary action No. 2 at the time of rendering the disposition of this case. Thus, the defendant did not make a determination as to the plaintiff's assertion as to Article 61(2) of the State Public Officials Act,

Article 61 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that a public official may not give or receive any case, gift, or entertainment, directly or indirectly, in connection with his/her duties. This is not only to prevent a public official from committing an unlawful act in connection with his/her duties, but also to prevent a public official from committing an unlawful act in connection with his/her duties, and to protect the integrity of the public official and the unfairness of his/her duties, and to ensure the appropriateness of the public official’s performance of duties, by preventing the act of receiving money or valuables related to his/her duties without having to make prior illegal solicitation

I would like to raise an appeal.

The purpose of the above provision and each evidence revealed as follows. The purpose of the State Public Officials Act is to prepare the basic criteria for personnel administration, which apply to state public officials, thereby achieving fairness in personnel administration, and to act as a servant of all citizens, and also to accept a bribe under the Criminal Act. On the other hand, Article 61 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that a public official shall receive a bribe directly or indirectly in relation to his duties, and Article 61 (1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that a public official shall receive a bribe directly or indirectly. Thus, there is room for broad interpretation compared to the elements for the crime of bribery under the Criminal Act. The plaintiff, upon the request of the State Public Officials in advance, returned C arbitrarily, who is the suspect of drinking, returned C, who is the suspect of drinking, and then received five million won from E to the inspection and investigation, which is the sole responsibility, and then received five million won from the State Public Officials Act as a public official, apart from the establishment of a series of acts of bribery under the Criminal Act, in light of the grounds for discipline under Article 61 (1) of the State Public Officials Act.

Therefore, this part of the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit on different premises.

다 ) 그러므로, 이 사건 제1, 2징계사유는 존재하고, 이는 국가공무원법 제56조 ( 성실의 의무 ), 제59조 ( 친절 · 공정의 의무 ), 제61조 제1항 ( 청렴의 의무 ), 제63조 ( 품위 유지의 의무 ) 를 위반한 것에 해당한다고 할 것이므로, 피고가 삼은 징계사유는 모두 존재한 2 ) 재량권의 일탈 · 남용 부분가 ) 공무원인 피징계자에게 징계사유가 있어 징계처분을 하는 경우 어떠한 처분을 할 것인지는 징계권자의 재량에 맡겨진 것이고, 다만 징계권자가 재량권의 행사로서 한 징계처분이 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃어 징계권자에게 맡겨진 재량권을 남용한 것이라고 인정되는 경우에 한하여 그 처분을 위법한 것이라고 할 것인데, 공무원에 대한 징계처분이 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃었다고 하려면 구체적인 사례에 따라 징계의 원인이 된 비위사실의 내용과 성질, 징계에 의하여 달성하려고 하는 행정목적, 징계 양정의 기준 등 여러 요소를 종합하여 판단할 때에 그 징계 내용이 객관적으로 명백히 부당하다고 인정할 수 있는 경우라야 하지만, 징계권의 행사가 임용권자의 재량에 맡겨진 것이라고 하여도 공익적 목적을 위하여 징계권을 행사하여야 할 공익의 원칙에 반하거나 일반적으로 징계사유로 삼은 비행의 정도에 비하여 균형을 잃은 과중한 징계처분을 선택함으로써 비례의 원칙에 위반하거나 또는 합리적인 사유 없이 같은 정도의 비행에 대하여 일반적으로 적용하여 온 기준과 어긋나게 공평을 잃은 징계처분을 선택함으로써 평등의 원칙에 위반한 경우에 이러한 징계처분은 재량권의 한계를 벗어난 처분으로서 위법하고 ( 대법원 1999. 11. 26. 선고 98두6951 판결 참조 ) , 나아가 징계처분에 있어 재량권의 행사가 비례의 원칙을 위반하였는지 여부는, 징계사유로 인정된 비행의 내용과 정도, 그 경위 내지 동기, 그 비행이 당해 행정조직 및 국민에게 끼치는 영향의 정도, 행위자의 직위 및 수행직무의 내용, 평소의 소행과 직무성적, 징계처분으로 인한 불이익의 정도 등 여러 사정을 건전한 사회통념에 따라 종합적으로 판단하여 결정하여야 한다 ( 대법원 2001, 8. 24. 선고 2000두7704 판결 등 참조 ) , 나 ) 위와 같은 법리에 비추어 이 사건을 살펴보면, 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 17, 갑 제6호증, 갑 제7호증의 10 내지 14, 갑 제8호증, 갑 제9호증의 1, 2, 갑 제11호증, 갑 제12호증, 갑 제13호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 원고는 음주혐의자인 C로부터 직접 연락을 받고 단속 현장으로 나간 것이 아니라, C로부터 연락받은 원고의 상관인 E로부터 C에 대한 선처를 바라는 취지의 부탁을 받은 후 단속 현장으로 나간 점, ② E은 과거 상당기간 원고의 상관으로 같은 경찰서에 근무한 적이 있는데다가 앞으로도 원고의 직속 상관으로 같이 근무하게 될 가능성을 배제할 수 없는 사정 등에 비추어 원고가 상관인 E의 위와 같은 청탁을 거절하기가 쉽지는 않았을 것으로 보이는 점 ( 물론 상관의 불법적 지시에 따를 의무가 없음은 자명하다 ), ③ 원고가 C를 임의 귀가 시켜주는 위법한 직무를 수행한 대가로 C로부터 직접적인 금품을 수수한 정황은 발견되지 아니한 점, ④ 원고가 C를 임의 귀가 시켜 준 날로부터 4개월 정도 지난 후에 E로부터 500만 원을 수수한 것은 사실이나, 위 금원의 액수 및 사건 무마일과 금품 수수일간의 시간 간격 등에 비추어 위 금원이 직접적으로 C를 임의 귀가 시켜준 데 대한 대가로 보기는 어렵고, 오히려 원고가 E의 지시를 은폐하기 위하여 축소진술을 하여준 대가 혹은 사직한 원고에 대한 위로금의 성격으로 보이는 점 ( E 역시 원고가 2013. 2. 18. 사직원을 제출하자 , " 집사람과 여행도 가고 달래주라 " 며 혼자 책임을 지고 사직원을 제출한 것에 대한 대가로 500만 원을 주었다고 진술하고 있다 ), ⑤ 원고가 E에게 음주운전 무마 혹은 축소 진술에 대한 대가를 먼저 요구한 것도 아니고, 위 금원을 수수한 날로부터 한 달이 채 지나기 전에 E에게 그대로 반환한 점, ⑥ 한편, E은 ' 원고에게 사실상 음주운전 단속을 해결하도록 지시하고, 원고가 축소 진술을 하여 준 대가로 500만 원을 지급하였으며 , 수시로 관내를 이탈하여 헬스와 사우나를 하였다 ' 등의 징계사유로 원고의 징계처분보다 낮은 해임처분을 받았는데, 비위의 정도 및 비난 가능성 등에 비추어 E이 원고에 비하여 그 죄질이 낮다고 보이지 아니하는 점, ⑦ 원고와 함께 근무하였던 다수의 경찰관들이 원고에 대한 선처를 탄원하고 있는 점, ⑧ 원고는 경찰공무원으로 근무한 22년 동안 경찰청창 표창 3회 등 총 25회의 표창을 수상할 정도로 성실하게 업무를 수행해 왔고, 특히 2006. 경 역주행 차량을 추격하며 저지하는 과정에서 약 6주간의 치료를 요하는 중상을 입어 공무상 요양 승인 결정을 받은 점, ⑨ 공무원의 징계 종류 중 파면은 공무원의 신분을 박탈함에 그치지 않고 원고와 같은 재직기간 5년 이상의 공무원

In the case of the retirement benefits and retirement allowances, the retirement benefits and retirement allowances are reduced by one-half, and the most severe disciplinary action is subject to the restriction on taking public office for five years (Article 64(1)2 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 5(1)1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act and Article 33(1)7 of the State Public Officials Act), etc., it is reasonable to view that the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff is greater than for the purpose of public interest, such as the credibility of the people to achieve through the instant disposition, the credibility of public officials’ duties, the normal operation of duties, and the maintenance of order in the public service society.

Therefore, apart from the fact that the degree of misconduct committed by the Plaintiff is not less than that of the Plaintiff, it cannot be avoided from the corresponding disciplinary action. The instant disposition is unlawful as exceeding the limit of the discretionary power entrusted to the person having authority over the disciplinary action.

C) Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner as it deviates from and abused discretionary power.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Kim Young-chul

Judges Unauthorizedd Judge