4. 15. The imposition of a surcharge of KRW 650,00 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a patrol officer on October 17, 1998, and was promoted to the police officer on July 2, 2012. From July 18, 2014 to December 10, 2015, the Plaintiff served in the Jeonnam-do Regional Police Agency’s Regional Investigation Officers, and served in the Gonam-do Regional Police Agency’s Regional Investigation Officers from July 18, 2014 to December 11, 2015.

B. On April 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the following grounds for disciplinary action, following the deliberation and resolution by the Jeonnam-do Regional Police Agency General Disciplinary Committee (amended by Act No. 13288, May 18, 2015; hereinafter “former State Public Officials Act”), under Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Fidelity), 61 (Duty of Integrity), and 63 (Duty of Integrity) of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 772, Jul. 29, 2015; hereinafter “former Code of Conduct”) against public officials of the National Police Agency (amended by Act No. 772, Jul. 29, 2015; hereinafter “former Code of Conduct”).

Police officers shall observe all Acts and subordinate statutes, perform their duties faithfully, and, in particular, may not give or receive cases, donations, or entertainment directly or indirectly in connection with their duties, notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff received entertainment equivalent to KRW 1950,00 from the former South Regional Office Criminal Service and a metropolitan investigation unit (from July 18, 2014 to December 30, 2015) at around 20:0, May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff violated his/her duty to transfer to the prosecutor’s office’s office of “D entertainment tavern” E located in the relevant person F (45 years of age, South) from his/her relative to his/her related person, and at the same time he/she received the case’s request for organized violence group G in the investigation at the time of the investigation, and at the same time he/she received the case’s 3 soldiers divided into two and three soldiers and received them, and ② after completing an entertainment site, the Plaintiff violated his/her duty to transfer it to the prosecutor’s office’s office’s office’s office’s 27.