Busan

소송대리인 변호사©OO

소송수행자 ▷▷▷

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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each description of evidence Nos. 8, 18, 24, 30, 31, and 31.

A. The plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on July 13, 1991, and was promoted to the police officer on October 21, 1998, and served in the Busan Coast Guard Zone since February 25, 2005.

B. At around 12:05 on June 6, 2005, the Plaintiff discovered and suspended (22 years old) a passenger car driving in front of the shipping zone maintenance factory located in the Busan Metropolitan Transportation Daegu Metropolitan City, which was in violation of the signal. However, the Plaintiff discovered and suspended (22 years old) a passenger car.

The 10,000 won in cash was sent to the match.

C. On August 11, 2005, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff on the ground that he violated Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 57 (Duty of Good Faith), and Article 61 (Duty of Integrity) of the State Public Officials Act due to the act that he did not receive money and other valuables and take appropriate measures against the violation of signals through the investigation of the Busan Regional Police Agency Inspector and the resolution of the Ordinary Disciplinary Committee of Police Officers of the Busan Regional Police Agency (hereinafter “Disposition of this case”). 2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case is unlawful as it abused discretion because it is too unreasonable in light of its degree of misconduct.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in dispute between the parties, each evidence of No. 1, Eul evidence of No. 1, Eul evidence of No. 2, Eul evidence of No. 3, Eul evidence of No. 4, Eul evidence of No. 5, Eul evidence of No. 6, Eul evidence of No. 9, Eul evidence of No. 10, Eul evidence of No. 11, Eul No. 12, Eul evidence of No. 13, Eul evidence of No. 14, Eul evidence of No. 15, Eul evidence of No. 16, Eul evidence of No. 17, Eul evidence of No. 19, Eul evidence of No. 21, Eul evidence of No. 22, Eul evidence of No. 36, Eul evidence of No. 5, Eul evidence of No. 6, Eul evidence of No. 9, Eul evidence of No. 142, and witness of the first instance trial, witness of the trial.

each testimony shall be recognized in full view of the whole purport of the pleading.

(A) On June 6, 2005, the Plaintiff was working at the Song Political Center while on the 112 patrols from 09:00 to 12:00, and discovered that there was no fuel on the part of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff was operating a vehicle near the entrance of the oil beach at the river at the river at the port of the stoba in order to supplement the fuel. At around 12:05, the Plaintiff was found to have been driving in violation of this signal.

(B) The plaintiff suspended the vehicle of a lawsuit for the purpose of crackdown, and then proceed to the chief commissioner.

On the other hand, "I are only the third female drivers, and the signal violation is a fine of 60,00 won, and the given point is 15,000 won, which requires the presentation of a license as "I am on the way to go," and the plaintiff returned the license to "I am on the way to go, I am on the way to go," and "I am not to go on the match," and "I am under the license to put it into the bottom of the license in the tobacco value."

(C) The Plaintiff, through △△△△, a workplace partner on the 10,000 foot blives of 10,000 won blives under the license, was included in the license, and the Plaintiff was found to have returned the blives of blives to the Plaintiff, which was only on the blives of the blives of the blives of the blives of the blives.

(D) On the other hand, △△△△, reported the name tag attached to the Plaintiff’s uniforms and entered the name of the Plaintiff and the number of the Otoba, on which the Plaintiff was on board, into the Handphone. The Plaintiff stated that “A person who was treated less than the Plaintiff and reported, who was in turn treated with the police station, shall undergo an investigation and pay the penalty, but shall not be subject to such investigation.”

(E) On June 27, 2005, the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency reported the phone call that the plaintiff committed the above misconduct and had the inspector in charge of the hearing office of the Busan Regional Police Agency investigate the above reported misconduct. The plaintiff denied the fact in the first investigation conducted on July 8, 2005 and recognized the receipt of money and valuables in the second investigation conducted on July 14, 2005.

(F) Meanwhile, on August 8, 2005, while the head of Busan Coast Guard, who is the head of the department to which the Plaintiff belongs, presented the Plaintiff’s opinion of heavy disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, the ordinary disciplinary committee was held on August 8, 2005. The Plaintiff appeared in the said disciplinary committee and stated that he was unable to memory or to 10,000 won in the first time, and later stated that the protocol prepared by the inspector was punished in accordance with the protocol.

(G) The Plaintiff’s work performance by rank was 184 out of 255 in the case of 2003, and was 130 out of 272 in the case of 2004, and the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action except for the two-time measures such as “an official commendation of the head of the local office, the official commendation of the chief of the 14th police station, etc. while serving as a police officer for 14 years and 14 months until the instant disposition,” and “an official commendation of the chief of the 14th police station, etc., and loss of the 2nd order.”

(2) Determination

(A) Article 79 of the State Public Officials Act classify disciplinary action into removal, dismissal, and suspension from office. Article 16 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, Article 2(1) of the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") provides that disciplinary action shall be decided in accordance with the criteria for disciplinary action under [Attachment Table 1] of the Rule, taking into account the type of misconduct of a discipline accused person, degree of misconduct, degree of negligence, seriousness of negligence, seriousness of conduct, performance, public service, opening, opinion of a person who requested disciplinary action, and other circumstances, etc.

(B) On the other hand, the issue of whether a disciplinary measure should be taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official is at the discretion of the disciplinary authority. Thus, in order to deem that the disciplinary measure is unlawful, it is limited to a case where the person having authority over disciplinary action is recognized to have abused the discretionary authority that has been placed to the person having authority over disciplinary action because the disciplinary measure substantially lacks validity under the social norms. Furthermore, whether a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms should be determined by taking into account various factors, such as characteristics of duties, the contents and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative purpose to be achieved through the disciplinary measure, the criteria for the determination of disciplinary measures, etc. In particular, the amount of money and valuables received, the process of receiving, the timing of receiving, and the timing of receiving, and whether the disciplinary measure had affected duties after the number of times (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu130, Jun. 28, 1983; 90Nu854, Jul. 23, 199).

(C) In light of the above relevant statutes and legal principles, it is difficult for police officers to take a strict and strict disciplinary action against traffic offense if they do not take a strict disciplinary action against the police officer's act of receiving money from the police officer, and they received money actively from the violator subject to the control, and ordered them to collect money from others. The plaintiff's illegal act was observed and reported to the winners who recorded the plaintiff's name and hetoo number. Thus, it is hard to expect police officers to take a fair and strict control against traffic offense if they do not take a strict disciplinary action against the act of receiving money from the police officer, and the police officers who work together with the general public and police officers to share money with the duty of integrity in the equity and duty of integrity under the law.

Therefore, in light of the Plaintiff’s characteristics and nature of the Plaintiff’s duties, criteria for disciplinary action, and purpose of disciplinary action, the Plaintiff’s dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground of the above ground for the above ground for disciplinary action is objectively unreasonable, and thus, is objectively unreasonable in light of the Plaintiff’s nature and nature of the Plaintiff’s duties, and cannot be said to have considerably lost validity in light of social norms, and thus, it does not constitute a case where the Plaintiff abused discretion regarding disciplinary action. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Kim Dong-jin

Lives and worship

* Police Officers Act

Article 30 (Relationship with State Public Officials Act)

(2) In applying the State Public Officials Act to police officials, the following shall apply:

3. The term "this Act" in Articles 67, 68, 78 (1) 1 and (2), 80 (6) and (7) of the State Public Officials Act shall be deemed to read as "this Act and the State Public Officials Act".

* State Public Officials Act

Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes, and perform their duties faithfully. Article 57 (Duty of Obedience)

Article 61 (Duty of Integrity) (1) No public official may give or receive any case donation or entertainment, whether directly or indirectly, in connection with his/her duties.

Article 78 (Causes of Disciplinary Disposition)

(1) If a public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, a resolution on disciplinary action shall be requested, and a disciplinary action shall be taken according to the result of the resolution on disciplinary action:

1. Where he violates this Act and any order issued under this Act;

2. When he violates his duties (including such duties as imposed on the status of public officials in other Acts and subordinate statutes), or neglects his duties;

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

Article 79 (Categories of Disciplinary Action) Disciplinary action shall be classified into removal, dismissal, suspension from office, reduction of salary, and reprimand.

Article 83-2 (Prescription of Grounds for Disciplinary Action)

(1) No resolution on a disciplinary action shall be requested at the expiration of two years (three years in the case of giving and receiving money, goods, and entertainment, and embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds) from the date on which the cause of the disciplinary action occurs.

* The Decree on Disciplinary Action against Police Officers

Article 16 (Determination of Disciplinary Action) In making a decision on a disciplinary case, the Disciplinary Committee shall take into account the behaviors, achievements, achievements, good faith and opinions of the person who has requested a disciplinary decision, and the opinion of the person who has requested a disciplinary decision.

*Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc. of Public Officials

Article 2 (Standards for Raising Disciplinary Measures)

(1) The Disciplinary Committee shall decide on a disciplinary case according to the criteria for disciplinary action determined in attached Table 1, in consideration of the type of misconduct, degree of misconduct, severity of negligence, seriousness of negligence, conduct of deliberation, conduct of good faith, public affairs, circumstances, and other circumstances of a discipline accused person.

[Attachment 1] Criteria for Disciplinary Action (the relation to Article 2)

Do

Progressive Office

A person shall be appointed.

Transitional room 16

Article 4 (Reduction of Disciplinary Action)

(1) The Disciplinary Committee may, in case where a person for whom a disciplinary decision is requested has rendered the meritorious service falling under any of the following subparagraphs, reduce the disciplinary action according to the criteria for mitigation of disciplinary action as shown in attached Table 3: Provided, That in case where the relevant public official has received a disciplinary action or warning under these Rules, the public service prior to the disciplinary action or warning shall be excluded from the public service subject to reduction, and for the misconduct and expenses subject to intensive purification for which the prescription of the disciplinary cause as provided in Article 83-2 (1) of the State Public Officials Act is 3 years,