해임처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. From January 1, 2013 to January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff served as a local public official in Section B of the Northern District Office of Education of Incheon Metropolitan City as C.
B. On November 27, 2014, the Defendant requested a resolution of heavy disciplinary action against the Plaintiff to the Chairperson of the Personnel Committee for the Office of Education of Incheon Metropolitan City, and on December 22, 2014, the Personnel Committee for the Office of Education of Incheon Metropolitan City decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the following misconduct (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) and violated Article 55 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the Local Public Officials Act, and accordingly, the Defendant was subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on January 6, 2015.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). From July 20, 2014 to September 21, 2014, the Plaintiff intruded into public toilets in buildings with a view to meeting sexual humiliations on seven occasions, and the Plaintiff taken pictures using mobile phone cameras by 30 victims, who entered the side partitions of the toilets.
C. On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Incheon Metropolitan City Committee on Appeal against Teachers on the instant disposition, but the Committee dismissed the petition on March 30, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4 and 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff alleged that he committed the instant misconduct, but did not contain any photograph taken, and agreed with some victims, and in the relevant criminal case, he was sentenced to a relatively minor fine by recognizing the same.
In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was appointed as a public official of Incheon Metropolitan City on January 1, 1995, and began his public official life for more than 19 years, the Plaintiff faithfully performed his duties as a public official for more than 19 years, and the instant disposition is too harsh to the Plaintiff when he was dismissed from office.
Therefore, this case.