Goyang-si Doz. -

Attorney Shin-hae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Commissioner of the Gyeonggi Police Agency

Litigation Performers, Choi Jin-jin

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. After being appointed as a policeman on September 8, 1990, the Plaintiff promoted to the police officer on October 21, 1998. From August 10, 2009 to February 27, 2010, the Plaintiff served in the Socheon Police Station Solar.

B. On March 25, 2010, the General Disciplinary Committee of Police Officers in the Macheon Police Station decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 57 (Duty of Fidelity), Article 58 (Prohibition of Deserting Office), Article 59 (Duty of Kind and Impartiality) and Article 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act as the grounds for the following disciplinary action, and the Defendant removed the Plaintiff on March 26, 2010 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The grounds of disciplinary action

1. Destruction of stolen soil and rocks;

The owner of stolen Bab (125C, Mazar) found on February 16, 2010 by the police officer Park 99 on his or her own will to dispose of the stolen Bab (125C, Mazar) voluntarily.

In addition, it is possible to find it again after making it possible to give up ownership by making it false and false."

on February 18, 2010 13: Around 46, to see it as a high-water and high-water obalone:

B. Transfer of Duoba in front of the earth (a CCTV recording place) from the earth to the earth's side, and front and rear the earth's back to the earth's end.

A knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife

(1) The head of the Si/Gun/Gu shall set the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu

§ 40,00,00

2. Illegal use of stolen soil and rocks;

On November 2, 2009, 2000. 11. 1. 1. 2, 2009 with a view to acquiring 125C, stetethes (125C, stethes) by fraud. 99

“ 오토바이는 주인을 찾아줘도 좋은 소리도 못 듣는데 기를 쓰고 뭘 그렇게 찾아 주냐 . ” 고 핀잔하고

The term "I am in a good condition" and "I am in a bad condition," and "I am in a room for the owner (person residing in the river)" by telephone, and "I am alone."

the repair cost is higher than the repair cost, as green melts and damages have been found. It is more than the transport cost.

. . . .. ... .... ....... to receive, by facsimile, the certificate of acceptance and waiver of stolen vehicles from the owner.

Without delay, it was used from November 2009 to February 26, 2010 as the air-going means of transport (hereinafter referred to as “No. 2”).

'Disciplinary Grounds';

3. Disturbing the order of deceptive scheme.

on February 16, 2010, the Plaintiff demanded that the Plaintiff cover the room (second floor of the earth) on the ground that there was no police room dispatched to the Self-Governing Province.

A person who has a complaint to the district register shall be unable to raise the complaint to the district register by "(the promotion candidates) after winning the district register, and to promote him/her."

o. The meaning of support, “if the age fargue finds out of fargue, fargue, fargue, fargue, farite fargue, fargue,” and

In the inspection and investigation period, the commander of the District Court said that he/she would not be able to promote chrone in the Republic of Korea.

(c) To kill the police organization in a way that disturbs the order of a deceptive scheme, such as voluntary retirement, voluntary retirement, and dismissal of the police organization (hereinafter referred to as “prising to gamble the police organization”);

'Disciplinary Grounds';

4. Disturbance of internal order.

1. Having An Anhman on December 2, 2009 that 198 Haman Sck Hack Hack Hack Hack Hack Hack had the right to work as the place of his service;

"..................... the phrase ".................................. in a civil petition...

B transfer B to Gyeong Kim97:

On December 2, 2009, the police officer who paid KRW 250,000 to the police officer Kim96, who is dissatisfied with the demand of KRW 250,000,000, and on February 20, 2010: 10,000.

The CCTV video installed in the Gu shall be operated on February 15, 2010 and the video of this case processed by Kim96 at night time on February 15, 2010 shall be operated on a mobile phone.

After filming by video, "I am on the Internet" is available to the team members. Scars have a great interest.

(c) disrupt internal order by means of intimidation, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason No. 4");

5. Suspension of duties habitually;

Even if the night-time recess is terminated, it does not work until a day-time shift, even though it is required to work, and it does not work.

8. Between February 21, 2010 and February 15, 2010, 112 reported and 112 reported general employees did not leave. They did not leave.

Hacked on behalf of Hack, and entered an office for voluntary crime prevention with a common cellphone, and call for two to three hours.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Reason No. 5") that habitually neglects to work by failing to perform patrol service, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Reason No. 5");

6. Fraud by fraud of money;

Around December 2009, 200 to 95, Kim 96, Kim Jong-soo, who was aware of the fact that he/she would pay money borrowed from 95, 196 to a police officer.

Money may be paid in the event of the investment in the shares in Korea." If it is not possible to make a profit, the end of January 2010.

. He shall return the principal to .. 700,000 won and 250,000 won, respectively, after being aware of . . 70,000 won and 2.50,000 won

'Disciplinary Grounds';

7. Sexual harassment on the job;

An adult product shop during the patrol at around December 2009 referred to as "n't need to be changed to a police officer?" and around February 2010, 201.

간근무시 텔레비전 사극을 보면서 “ 강순경 , 쟤는 왜 쭈쭈를 만지냐 . ” 라며 2 ~ 3회 반복하여 말하고 ,

When investigating the juvenile suspect, "the period of stay is fluent; .... the same shall apply to ....." and "the place where the abortion is fluent?"

F. The term "non-time" frequently leads to sexual harassment on the job, such as enjoying the reaction of the frat, and making it possible (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 7").

§ 30,000,00

8. Deserting from a workplace without permission.

on March 15, 2010 : 17: 00 copies, even though the head of the agency (the head of the agency) rendered no permission on March 16, 2010, for sick leave applied by telephone at around 00.

Until now, unauthorized absence from work has been unauthorized (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason No. 8").

C. On April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal review with the appeals review committee of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security on April 30, 2010, but was dismissed on July 5, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-5, Eul evidence 2-4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case by the defendant is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Defect in the disciplinary procedure

From March 21, 2010 to March 29, 2010, the Defendant made a decision on disciplinary action during the period of hospitalization without giving the Plaintiff any opportunity to make any statement, even though the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the veterans hospital and could not respond to the examination of the hearing. The Defendant did not know the type of disciplinary action by omitting a copy of the written request for disciplinary resolution under Article 7(7) of the Decree on Punishment of Public Officials. Furthermore, even based on the above mark, the Plaintiff suffered significant obstacles to the Plaintiff’s exercise of his right to defense due to the defect in the disciplinary procedure, such as the fact that the Plaintiff merely stated “serious disciplinary action” without specifying the type of disciplinary action.

(2) misunderstanding of facts as to the grounds for disciplinary action

(A) Disciplinary Reason No. 1 (No. 1)

After receiving a certificate of acceptance and waiver to the effect that at the time the Plaintiff wishes to dispose of it from the owner of the stolen Bab, the Plaintiff merely caused the theft Baba police station security guards to destroy and dispose of the existing erroneous arbial relationship to be disposed of by destroying and destroying it to the arbane in the jurisdiction of the Earba police station, and knbbbn 94 stated that the Plaintiff, pointing out the criminal acts of the earbbbbbbbs, e.g., the Plaintiff failed to distort and exaggeration the facts at the time of the instant disciplinary investigation.

(B) Disciplinary Reason No. 2 (No. 2)

At the time, the Plaintiff received contact from the reporter of the stolen Oral Ba to the effect that the transportation cost would be added to the waste disposal, and the Plaintiff left it to the Oral Ba business operator for the destruction. However, the Plaintiff was merely the Plaintiff’s lease of the cost to the end of the Oal Babian that the Plaintiff would also lease the cost to the end of the Oal Babian business operator for commuting use.

(C) Disciplinary Reason No. 3 (Disturbing the order of deceptive scheme)

The plaintiff did not want the district register to be open to the public, such as the grounds for the disciplinary action in this part.

(D) Disciplinary Reason No. 4 (Disturbance of internal order)

The Plaintiff not only did not speak as stated in the grounds for disciplinary action in this part, but also threatened a police officer Kim 96 to spread cell phone images at the request of 98 Salman Kim Jong-soo, who merely sent his/her service as he/she was on duty, or who paid his/her 2.50,000 won.

(E) Disciplinary Reason 5 (Habitual neglect of Duties)

The Plaintiff did not have a private call for several hours with a public mobile phone as the grounds for the disciplinary action in this part, and on the grounds that the police officer of the same police officer took full account of the Plaintiff’s night duty compared to his rank, and did not intentionally neglect night duty. In addition, the police officer of the same police officer of the same police officer of the same police officer of the same police officer pointing out the criminal acts of the same police officer Kim 96, etc. of the same police officer of the same police officer pointing out his criminal acts of the same police officer of the same police officer Kim 96, thereby distorted and exaggerationing the facts at the time of the instant disciplinary investigation.

(f) Disciplinary Reason 6 (cashation for money)

The borrowing of money of 95, Kim96 to police officers is substantially Kim 97. The plaintiff shall manage the money of 95, Kim 96 deposited in the course of managing his/her securities account with Kim 97 request.

was only the one.

(g) Disciplinary Reason 7 (sexual harassment on the job)

Although the Plaintiff received intelligence related to illegal adult product stores and visited the adult product stores 93, which were 95 with the police officer, and which were 93, the Plaintiff did not have sexual harassment at the time of 195.

(h) Disciplinary Reason 8 (Unauthorized Desertion of Employment)

The Plaintiff had originally been suffering from severe stress with the police officers in the same region at the time, and became difficult to perform their normal duties. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed an application for sick leave for the treatment from March 2, 2010 to March 15, 2010, and received medical treatment at the chemical Central Hospital for the treatment. The Defendant sent the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s sick room during the above period on March 2, 2010, and investigated the Plaintiff’s injury and made an application for additional sick leave on March 15, 2010 as the injury further aggravated. Thus, this part of the grounds for the disciplinary action that the Defendant, without the Defendant’s rejection, treated as the Plaintiff’s unauthorized absence of permission, is unjust.

(3) Deviation and abuse of discretionary power

Even if the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a ground for disciplinary action, in light of the content, degree, circumstance, etc. of the violation, the instant disposition was excessively harsh compared to the public interest to be achieved thereby, and thus, it deviates from and abused discretion.

(b) Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related Acts and subordinate statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) On the assertion of the defect in the disciplinary procedure

Article 7 (6) of the Decree on Disciplinary Punishment of Public Officials provides that "A request for a disciplinary resolution, etc. shall be filed with the competent disciplinary committee, along with the relevant data falling under each of the following subparagraphs, after conducting a sufficient investigation on the grounds for disciplinary resolution, etc., and shall be filed with the competent disciplinary committee, which shall be classified into heavy disciplinary action or minor disciplinary action." Article 7 (1) 1 provides that "A request for a disciplinary resolution, etc. of a public official in attached Form 1" shall be made, and Article 7 (7) provides that a person who requests a disciplinary resolution, etc. shall, at the same time, forward a copy of the request for such disciplinary resolution, etc. of a public official in paragraph (6) to the suspect who is suspected of being subject to disciplinary resolution, etc.: Provided, That this shall not apply where a person

In light of the above facts, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 9-1, Eul evidence Nos. 10, 12-1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 13-1 and 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 14, 15-1 and 2, the defendant was present at the above 3-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-2-2-3-2-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-3-3-2-3-24-3-2010.

(2) As to the assertion of mistake of facts as to the grounds for disciplinary action

(A) Disciplinary Reason No. 1 (No. 1)

살피건대 , 을 제16호증의 7 , 10 , 을 제17호증의 1 , 2 , 을 제18호증 , 을 제19호 증의 1 , 을 제21호증의 1 , 2 , 5의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉 , 순경 박99는 이 사건 징계조사시 " 2010 . 2 . 17 . 15 : 00경 순찰근 무 중 소흘읍사무소 입구 자전거보관대에서 소유자 홍89가 도난당한 오토바이 ( 서울 성 동 차0000호 125cc 포르테 오토바이 ) 를 발견하고 이를 소유자에게 돌려주려고 하였으 나 김 부장님 ( 원고 ) 이 오토바이를 임의처분하려고 해 ' 상태가 양호한데 돌려줘야 하는 것 아닙니까 ? ' 라고 묻자 , 김 부장님은 ' 너는 참 왜 그러냐 . ' 라고 하였고 , 그 후 다시 소 유자가 아들이 찾아오라고 한다면서 택배기사를 보낸다고 하여 김 부장님에게 ' 부장님 오토바이 찾으러 온데요 . ' 라고 하자 , 갑자기 저를 나오라고 하더니 오토바이를 지구대 옆의 방범대 사무실 아래로 옮기자고 하여 같이 옮긴 후 사무실에서 송곳을 들고 나와 송곳으로 앞 · 뒤 바퀴에 펑크를 내며 ' 아까 전화 할 때 다 썩은 고물이라고 했는데 , 피 해자가 보면 뭐라 하겠어 . ' 하며 차고 있던 삼단봉으로 오토바이를 내리쳐 부셔놨다 . " 는 취지로 당시 상황을 비교적 구체적이고 일관되게 진술한 점 , 지구대 CCTV 화면에 원 고가 지구대 사무실에서 송곳을 가지고 나간 뒤 지구대 앞에 있던 오토바이를 순경 박 199와 함께 지구대 옆의 방범대사무실 밑의 주차장으로 이동시키는 영상이 확인되어 순 경 박99의 진술과 부합하는 점 , 원고도 이 사건 징계조사시 자신이 위 오토바이의 바 퀴를 손괴한 것은 인정하였던 점 , 소유자는 위 오토바이를 돌려받아 파손된 타이어 , 전 조등 , 후사경 부분을 38만 원의 수리비를 들여 수리하였던 점 등이 인정되고 , 위 인정 사실에 비추어 보면 , 원고가 도난 오토바이를 고의로 손괴하였다는 이 부분 징계사유 를 넉넉히 인정할 수 있다 . 따라서 원고의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다 .

(B) Disciplinary Reason No. 2 (No. 2)

The plaintiff's 1, 4, 7, 11, 3, 18 Eul evidence 18-2, 19-2, 9 of Eul evidence 21, 19-1, and 9 were found to have been no longer used for the purpose of using the above 7-party 1's 11 and 5-11, 209. The plaintiff's 7-party 2's 11 and 50-party 2's 8-party 2's 1 and 88-party 2's 10-party 2's 10-party 1 and 6's 7-party 2's 10-party 2's 10-party 3643 party 1 and 8-party 2's 10-party 2's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

(C) Disciplinary Reason No. 3 (Disturbing the order of deceptive scheme)

I would like to look at the following circumstances, i.e., Kim 96, which were acknowledged to have comprehensively taken account of the respective descriptions and arguments of No. 16-1, 6 and 11, i.e., the disciplinary investigation of this case: "No. 2, after this case's relocation (round February 18, 2010), the newly Neman's boundary book provides that she would have deducted her worker from her room? The inside of her room? I would be able to prevent her from being promoted, so she would have to die : 00 p.m., the plaintiff's 2-p.m. and 1-p. 2-p.m., that she would have been able to look into her first time during the period of 0-p.m. 2-p., the plaintiff's oral retirement, and that she would have been able to kill her only 1-p.m., the plaintiff's oral retirement."

(D) Disciplinary Reason No. 4 (Disturbance of internal order)

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., Kim 96, at the time of this case's disciplinary investigation, he stated that the plaintiff had a 20-day witness to the above 16-1 through 3, 5, 6 through 9, 11, 21-3, and 4, and the purport of the whole oral argument, i.e., the plaintiff's oral statement to the effect that the plaintiff had a 20-day witness to the above 10-year-time witness and police officer's oral statement to the effect that the plaintiff had a 20-day witness to the above 10-year-time witness and police officer's oral statement to the effect that the plaintiff had a 20-year-time witness to the above 10-year-time witness's oral statement to the effect that the plaintiff had a 10-minute witness to the above 20-year-day witness's oral statement to the effect that he had a 10-minute witness to the above 10-minute witness's oral statement.

(E) Disciplinary Reason 5 (Habitual neglect of Duties)

In light of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in No. 16-2, No. 16-2, No. 8, 9, Eul No. 20-1, Eul No. 21-3, and Eul No. 22, the following circumstances, i.e., during the investigation into the disciplinary action of this case, the time of the plaintiff's patrol duty, i.e., the plaintiff took a rest in the second floor at the time of his patrol duty, and the defendant pointed out that he failed to perform his duties, such as entering the office of the Voluntary Crime Prevention and Security, and making a statement to the effect that he did not perform his duties, even though he did not perform his duties, she did not perform his duties, she habitually because he did not perform his duty for the new wall time patrol, and that the plaintiff did not perform his duty for the reason that he did not perform his duties for the reason that he did not perform his duties for the reason that he did not perform his duties for the plaintiff 1 to 20.2.

(f) Disciplinary Reason 6 (cashation for money)

In other words, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence 16-1 through 3, 11, Eul evidence 21-3, and 4, i.e., the disciplinary investigation of this case attempted to offer money to police officers 95, and Kim 96 at the end of December 2009, and the plaintiff, who was next to the plaintiff, stated that "I would not pay money to the plaintiff once again," and that "I would not pay money to the plaintiff until the end of 0,000,000 won," and that "I would like to offer money to the plaintiff by the end of 0,000 won."

(g) Disciplinary Reason 7 (sexual harassment on the job)

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in No. 16-1, No. 16-1, 3, 11, and No. 21-4 of the evidence No. 21-2, i.e., the Defendant’s disciplinary investigation of the instant disciplinary action 95, which is the fact that the Plaintiff made a sexual statement to himself/herself as stated in the grounds for the disciplinary action of this case, is relatively dynamicly and consistently stated, and Kim 96 also made a statement to the effect that he/she made a sexual speech during his/her usual 95 when the Plaintiff was demoted to his/her usual 95, and that it corresponds thereto, this part of the grounds for the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff was sufficiently recognized. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

(h) Disciplinary Reason 8 (Unauthorized Desertion of Employment)

Unless there is a special reason, the permitting authority has the duty to work in the absence of a public official who applied for sick leave with the medical certificate attached. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff refused to attend the inspection and investigation of the instant case on February 28, 2010, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the YY on March 2, 2010, after having applied for sick leave on March 15, 2010, after having applied for sick leave again on March 15, 2010, after considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence 6-1 through 3, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 12-1, and Eul evidence 12-4, and after having applied for sick leave, the Plaintiff could not immediately return to SP and the Plaintiff's application for military service without permission. In light of the above circumstances, the head of SPS on the same day rejected the Plaintiff's application for military service without permission and the Plaintiff's application for military service without permission.

(3) As to the assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

(A) When a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the person subject to disciplinary measures is at the discretion of the person subject to disciplinary measures. However, the disciplinary measure is unlawful only when the person subject to disciplinary measures, who has been taken as the person subject to disciplinary measures, has been deemed to abuse the person subject to disciplinary measures with the discretionary power because the person subject to disciplinary measures has considerably lost validity under the social norms. In a specific case, the disposition is unlawful as a whole, based on sound social norms, including the content and degree of flight recognized as the grounds for disciplinary measures, the circumstances and motive thereof, the degree of influence the administrative organization and citizens in question, the degree of influence that the behavior has inflicted on the person in question, the position and performance of duties of the person in question, the degree of disadvantage caused by the disciplinary action, and the degree of the disciplinary action, which is generally considered as the grounds for disciplinary action, and is in conflict with the principle of proportionality or the standards generally applied to the same degree without reasonable grounds, and thus, is against the principle of equality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du684.

(B) Taking into account the following circumstances, which are recognized by evidence and facts as to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s commission of the most severe disciplinary action, even if the degree of misconduct committed by the Plaintiff is not less severe and it is impossible to avoid the corresponding heavy disciplinary action.

It is reasonable to view that the instant disposition was an abuse of discretion due to the Plaintiff’s excessive suspicion. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is with merit.

1) Even though the police officer, who protects the lives and property of the Plaintiff, intentionally destroys the stolen soil and sand, uses it for his commuting to and from work, disturbs the internal order of the police officer, disrupts the patrol and the mobilization of the police officer, makes the patrol and the mobilization of the report to the police officer, and takes a sense of sexual humiliation from the same disciplinary cause of the instant case, even though the Plaintiff had a duty to observe the laws and regulations, and faithfully perform his/her duties as a police officer protecting the lives and property of the people, it is found that the Plaintiff committed the same misconduct as the disciplinary cause of the instant case. However, the instant disciplinary cause of the instant case was recorded or recorded while the Plaintiff pointed out that the police officer's assistance was made, while the Plaintiff’s improper job attitude was consistently consistent, it seems that the Plaintiff’s intention was not significant in terms of the individual disciplinary cause of the instant disciplinary cause.

2) In relation to the instant disciplinary cause No. 4, which led to the Plaintiff’s disturbance of internal order by spreading the images of the students boomed by Kim96, on the Internet, the actual patrolman Kim 96 was recognized as having committed the above assault and was sentenced to the suspension of imprisonment for four months and suspension of qualification for six months.

3) The Plaintiff had no record of disciplinary action other than the instant case while serving as a police officer for about 20 years.

4) According to Article 64(1) of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 55(1)1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act, where a public official who has served for at least five years is removed by disciplinary action, even if he/she is removed by a disciplinary action, he/she is subject to reduction of 1/2 of retirement benefits and retirement allowances, and there is a substantial difference between removal and other disciplinary actions against his/her property disadvantage.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is decided to accept it, and it is decided as per the disposition.

Judges B.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

The State Public Officials Act

Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith)

All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes, and perform faithfully their duties.

Article 57 (Duty to Comply with)

A public official shall obey any official order of his/her superior in performing his/her duties.

Article 58 (Prohibition of Deserting Office)

(1) No public official shall leave his/her place of work, except in extenuating circumstances.

Article 59 (Duty of Kindness and Impartiality)

Every public official shall work kindly and impartially as servants of all citizens.

Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity)

No public official shall commit any act detrimental to his/her dignity, regardless of whether it is for his/her duties.

Article 78 (Grounds for Discipline)

(1) If a public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall request a resolution on disciplinary action and the result of disciplinary action:

shall be subject to a disciplinary action.

1. Where he/she violates this Act or any order issued under this Act;

2. Any duty in the course of performing his duties (including such duty as imposed on the status of public officials in other Acts and subordinate statutes) or any position;

when he neglected to do so;

3. Where he commits an act detrimental to his prestige or dignity, regardless of a connection with his duties.

Article 79 (Categories of Discipline)

Disciplinary action shall be classified into removal, dismissal, demotion, suspension from office, reduction of salary, and reprimand.

Public Officials Pension Act

Article 64 (Restriction on Benefits for Punishment, etc.)

(1) Where a present or former public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, part of his/her retirement benefits and retirement allowances shall be reduced and paid, as prescribed by Presidential Decree. In such cases, the amount of retirement benefits shall not be reduced below the amount calculated by adding the interest specified in Article 379 of the Civil Act to the total amount of contributions paid:

1. Where he/she is sentenced to imprisonment without labor or heavier punishment for a reason that he/she is in office (excluding cases where he/she is due to negligence unrelated to his/her duties or due to negligence while complying with legitimate orders of his/her superior);

2. Where he/she is removed by impeachment or disciplinary action;

3. Where he/she is dismissed in disciplinary action for accepting valuables and entertainments, or the embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds.

Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension

Article 55 (Reduction of Retirement Benefits and Retirement Allowances by Punishment, etc.)

(1) When a current or former public official falls under any subparagraph of Article 64 (1) of the Act, his/her retirement benefits and retirement allowances shall be reduced as classified in the following subparagraphs. In such cases, the retirement pension or early retirement pension shall not be reduced until the month in which the date on which he/she falls under the cause of reduction falls:

1. A person who falls under Article 64 (1) 1 or 2 of the Act;

(a) In cases of retirement benefits of a person whose period of service is less than five years, one fourth of the said amount;

(b) In cases of retirement benefits of a person whose period of service is not less than five years, one half of the relevant amount;

(c) For a retirement allowance, 1/2 of the relevant amount.

2. A person who falls under Article 64 (1) 3 of the Act;

(c) 1/8 of the amount in question, in the case of a person whose tenure of office is less than five years,

(c) 1/4 of the relevant amount, in the case of the food of a person whose re-office period is not less than five years.

(c) In the case of a retirement allowance, 1/4 of its total amount.