2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on January 29, 1994, and was promoted to a slope on June 1, 2007. From September 3, 2011, the Plaintiff served in the military police station B police box from September 3, 201.

B. On September 6, 2013, the General Disciplinary Committee on Police Officers at the Military Police Station decided on the Plaintiff, and on September 9, 2013, the Defendant issued a dismissal disposition under Article 78(1)1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 57 (Duty of Fidelity), and 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act with respect to the following misconduct (hereinafter “instant misconduct”).

1. Neglecting duties;

A. On June 10, 2013, at around 12:15, the Plaintiff neglected to perform duties in violation of a legitimate order, such as making up approximately 10 minutes of the patrol vehicle without taking any measures, even though he was ordered by the police box reduction E to conduct search and seizure of the apartment unit No. 112, after having called the scene to the 112 string of the apartment unit No. 3 located in the military, the Plaintiff neglected to perform duties in violation of a legitimate order, such as holding the 10 minutes of the patrol vehicle.

B. On June 10, 2013, around 15:00 on June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff received a report of the occurrence of a traffic accident from the food distance located in the Gun film-dong, Gun film-si, and dispatched it

Although the head of the team at the time F and Assistant G were on-site measures and traffic control, the Plaintiff neglected to perform his/her duties, such as leaving the scene on the side of the patrol vehicle parked at approximately 30 meters away from the scene, and failing to take any measures.

C. On June 10, 2013, at around 16:00, the Plaintiff reported that there had occurred a change in the H apartment subsequent to the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si, and dispatched it to the site.

At the time, the head of the team F and Assistant G were in charge of the relevant work for a period of one hour and 30 minutes, such as the number of bereaved family members, contact with the food team, etc., but the Plaintiff was parked away from the field and about 100 meters while the scene had been changed.