[파면처분취소][공1981.10.1.(665),14272]
The delay of notification of results by prosecutor and prescription of grounds for disciplinary action;
The defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor notified the prosecutor's office of March 13, 1979 that the case of acceptance of bribe against the plaintiff was investigated by the prosecutor, so it was not required to make a resolution or other disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff pursuant to Article 73 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act, and the prosecutor's office made a decision of suspension of prosecution as of March 13, 1978 with respect to the above suspected case, and it was legitimate to demand a resolution of disciplinary action against the plaintiff on March 16, 1979, less than one month under Article 73-2 (2) of the Local Public Officials Act.
Articles 73(2) and 73(2) of the Local Public Officials Act; Article 73(2) of the Local Public Officials Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu379 delivered on October 15, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney
According to the judgment of the court below, the defendant's disciplinary action against the plaintiff 1 was against the above 3 prosecutor's office on September 197, 1976, and the defendant's 10,00 won was issued as a bribe to the non-party 1, 79. The defendant's request for disciplinary action against the plaintiff 1 was made as one of the grounds for disciplinary action, and the defendant's request for disciplinary action against the plaintiff 3 was made after 2 years from the ground for disciplinary action of this case. The defendant's request for disciplinary action against the plaintiff 1 was made after 3 years from the ground for the above 97 prosecutor's office's office's 97 prosecutor's office's 97 prosecutor's 9 prosecutor's 9 prosecutor's 9 prosecutor's 9 prosecutor's 197 prosecutor's 9 prosecutor's 97 prosecutor's 9 prosecutor's 197 prosecutor's 9 prosecutor's 17 prosecutor's 197 prosecutor's 3 prosecutor's 16 prosecutor's 1.
2.With respect to the Second and Three Points:
According to the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the plaintiff (1) was delivered 100,000 won as a bribe to the non-party non-party on September 1, 1976, and (2) the prosecutor started an investigation on the above facts from 00: February 23, 1978; and (1) the above reasons were absent from the workplace without justifiable reasons; and (2) the above reasons were that the non-party's duty of integrity under Article 53 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act and the duty of dignity maintenance under Article 55 of the same Act; (2) the above reasons were short, but the period violated the duty of prohibition against escape under Article 50 (1) of the same Act; and (3) the dismissal of the plaintiff among the disciplinary actions cannot be deemed to go beyond the scope of discretion; and (4) there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to disciplinary actions or the relation of disciplinary discretion at the time of employment; and therefore, (3) the judgment below is justified.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)