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

A. The Plaintiff was a police officer appointed as a patrol officer on September 3, 2001, and served as a patrol officer from September 10, 2015, when promoted to the police officer on July 1, 2014.

B. On November 16, 2017, the Defendant committed the misconduct listed in the list of misconducts (attached Form 1) (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) and violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Good Faith) and 63 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act, and appointed the Plaintiff as an assistant in accordance with Article 78(1)1 through 3 of the State Public Officials Act.

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal review with the Ministry of Personnel Management seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the appeals review committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on June 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

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

1) The Plaintiff did not commit each of the instant misconducts, and each of the instant misconducts is based on the Defendant’s unilateral statement made by Police Officers C (hereinafter “C”), and it cannot be deemed that each of the instant misconducts was proven.

B) Even if the Plaintiff committed a part of the instant misconduct, the Plaintiff did not have any intent to cause sexual humiliation or humiliation to C, and did not have any intent to commit sexual harassment or sexual harassment, such as having no intent to take sexual satisfaction against C. Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s speech and behavior had reached the degree of causing a general and average person who is in the same position as C to feel sexual humiliation and aversion. (ii) The abuse of the right to take disciplinary discretion is the principle of proportionality.