Litigation Performers, Kim D1

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

The dismissal disposition against the plaintiff on July 17, 2009 by the defendant of the Gu office shall be revoked.

가. 원고는 2006. 5. 15. ▲지방검찰청 △지청에 검찰서기보로 임용되어 2008. 6. 9.부터 ①지방검찰청 공판사무과에서 보석·적부심 담당자로 근무하여 왔다.

B. On July 14, 2009, the General Disciplinary Committee of the High Public Prosecutor's Office decided to dismiss the plaintiff under Article 78 (1) and Article 79 of the same Act, Article 17 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, and Articles 2 and 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Decree, on the ground that the plaintiff's violation of Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 58 (Prohibition of Absence of Employment), Article 59 (Duty of Kind and Fairness), and Article 63 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act was committed during the period of restriction on promotion under Article 32 of the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials. Accordingly, the defendant dismissed the plaintiff on July 17, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

【Fact of Grounds for Disciplinary Action】

① From June 9, 2008 to February 4, 2009, the Plaintiff, while performing duties for the examination of the legality of bail and detention at the above trial division, has been negligent in performing duties due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform duties by putting music, putting music during ordinary hours of work, listening to the Internet or character of a pastor, listening to a pastor, or frequent transfer of a pastor, etc. In addition, the Plaintiff interfered with the work atmosphere of the paid staff by evading other employees’ duties in relation to the agency during the vacations or absence of the paid staff.

② During the period under the above paragraph (1), the Plaintiff had been frequently engaged in any conduct deviating from the case, such as putting a woman on the part of the woman, and dividing the guidance and the conversation with the chief of the division of the division of the division, etc. The Plaintiff had caused the civil petitioner’s original nature due to the verbal behavior that disregards the civil petitioner’s “whether he or she is not aware”. In the event of the division of conversation with the civil petitioner, there was a fact that the court’s employees and the job-related currency had been able to engage in an improper speech due to the strong and disregarding verbal behavior, such as enhancing the tension and being slided.

③ On November 2008, the Plaintiff was unable to find several jobs without permission for hospital treatment or bank transactions, and the director in charge of the division to which he/she belongs was given a warning once on the ground that he/she was released from the Kim C without permission for long time.

④ On December 31, 2008, when the Plaintiff received a release order for release on bail with no security deposit for a suspect under the name of the court at the morning, the Plaintiff, a person in charge, immediately, obtained the signature and seal of the prosecutor in the written order for release, and later transferred the written order to a worker on duty without confirming the contents of the written order, and later delayed release on the ground that the Plaintiff, a person in charge, took the custody of the written order for release, without confirming the contents of the written order, was handed over to the worker on duty. As such, the Plaintiff delayed release of the suspect on the ground that he was released by the staff of

⑤ On January 29, 2009, when the Plaintiff received a written decision on the review of legality of detention against the suspect KimC1 of violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, which was forwarded on January 29, 2009, the Plaintiff prepared a written order of release with the prosecutor’s signature and seal affixed and sent it to the head of the detention house prison or the police station where the suspect is stationed, but did not send the written order of release to the above suspect, left the detention house or the police station where the suspect is stationed, and did not leave the above suspect by leaving the suspect’s defense counsel at around 10:10 on the following day, and sent it to the P detention house with the prosecutor’s signature and seal affixed thereon, and thereby delaying the release of the suspect by release.

6) On January 30, 2009, the Plaintiff sent a call to the general secretary and Kim C3, who called the Plaintiff to check the details of delayed release on the legality of detention, with the direction of the head of the general secretary general around 18:00 on January 30, 200 to check the Plaintiff’s above delayed release on the legality of detention, and asked the Plaintiff to “I am in mind, with the mind that I am going to the public trial. I am going to talk. I am to am before the inner test. I am to show that I am gue. I am to show that I am gue. I am. I am. I am to am. I am. I am to am to am

7) On January 30, 2009, the Plaintiff walked the phone call to the above Kim Jong-C, and then see: “YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY......

⑧ 원고는 2009. 2. 4.부터 현재까지 위 석방지연 사유로 공판과에서 수사지원과로 전보된 후 ☆ 교회'라는 신흥종교에 심취하여 사무실에서는 대부분 일과시간을 성경공부로 보내는 등으로 동료직원들의 근무분위기를 저해함은 물론 특히, 인터넷 네이버 토론실에 종교관련 글을 게재하였다가 이를 삭제한 운영자와 전화로 다투는 등 업무에 불성실한 사실이 있다.다. 원고는 이에 불복하여 행정안전부 소청심사위원회에 이 사건 처분의 감경을 구하는 내용의 소청을 하였으나, 위 소청심사위원회는 2009. 12. 11. 위 청구를 기각하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The legality of the instant disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Absence of grounds for disciplinary action

A) Disciplinary reasons (i.e., grounds for discipline (ii), (iii), and (iv) lack of the existence of time and place as the basis of unilateral statements by some relevant persons, and the statements and statements by the employees the Defendant is unlawfully collected and there is no other objective evidence.

B) The grounds for disciplinary action No. 4 are completed, and most prosecutors were dismissed, and there was no prosecutor who was ordered to release, and the prosecutor on duty also waited from the point of time to the 3 p.m. in the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office

C) The Plaintiff, upon consultation with the full-time officer, etc., notified the pertinent prosecutor’s office that he/she should immediately release the suspect in accordance with the court’s decision of approval of legality of detention, but later, sent the suspect to the detention house without releasing the suspect from the pertinent prosecutor’s office.

D) Among the currency with Kim C3, there was a serious appraisal and a contingent desire to make a threat, and there was no threat.

2) In light of the motive and background leading up to a series of acts by the Plaintiff as a abuse of discretionary power, the determination of the appeals review committee, the decision of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, the developments leading up to the commencement of the disciplinary procedure, etc., the instant disposition dismissing the Plaintiff was unlawful since it exceeded or abused the scope of discretionary power

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) Plaintiff’s work experience, reward and punishment experience, etc.

A) On May 15, 2006, while the Plaintiff passed an open competitive recruitment examination for prosecutory office 9 in 2005 and served as a Grade 9 prosecutorial office △△△△△△ on May 15, 2006, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of one month of salary reduction on the ground of the injury to public officials’ dignity on May 8, 2007, and was placed in personnel assistance as a branch office of the district public prosecutorial office on June 11, 2007. On March 27, 2008, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of two months of disturbance and suspension from office on the ground of the injury to public officials.

B) On May 8, 2007, the disciplinary action for the first month of salary reduction was invalidated on August 15, 2008 by the President’s amnesty, and the records of the disciplinary action, etc. were also deleted in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Regulations on the Records of Private History and the Handling of Personnel Affairs as Public Officials.

2) The suspect delayed release case on December 31, 2008

A) On December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff, at around 12:30 on December 31, 2008, transferred the documents related to bail to Nonparty Da4, a worker on duty (the duty was organized from 12:00 to 12:0) and said that if the Defendant’s family members or attorneys’ offices bring bail money, the Plaintiff issued a receipt and sent it to the P detention house under the direction of the prosecutor.

B) While he was waiting for the payment of the bail amount according to the Plaintiff’s instruction, on the same day, at around 16:30 of the same day, he received a call from an attorney-at-law office appointed by the suspect demanding the release, and contacted the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff said that he was under the direction of immediate release, i.e., whether the bail with no deposit was a bail.

C) Accordingly, the suspect was released from around 18:30 to around 19:30 on the same day.

3) The suspect delayed release case on January 29, 2009

A) On January 29, 2009, Nonparty 1 and Yellow C5 were suspected of violating the Game Industry Promotion Act, and were detained in the district prosecutor’s office, and on the same day, the release was determined on the condition of deposit payment as a result of the examination of legality of detention conducted by the district court.

B) At around 17:30 on the same day, the Plaintiff received a written decision of release from the above court, and received an insurance policy custody report from the defense counsel of Kim C1 and Yellow C5 on the same day. At that time, Kim C1 was investigated by Nonparty BC6 prosecutor, and yellow C5 was waiting at the guard office.

C) The Plaintiff prepared a written order of release with respect to Kim C1 and Yellow C5, and then, the Nonparty 2C6 prosecutor who was investigating Kim C1 at that time was approved by the above prosecutor.

D) At this time, Nonparty 37, who works in the above prosecutor’s office, sent the release order promptly to the police officer’s office and let the detained suspect take the release procedure. However, in the case of Kim C1, the Plaintiff determined that the pertinent prosecutor’s office would be released after investigation, and only sent the release order to the branch office of the escort police officer, and stored the release order for Kim C1 in his/her own knifs.

E) At around 18:15, Nonparty 38, an investigator of the above prosecutor’s office, finished an investigation into Kim C1 and sent the release order to Kim C9 in the custody book to the Escort police officer Kim Jong-C1, and the release order was delivered to the department in charge. Accordingly, KimC9 notified the release according to the procedure. While waiting at the liaison office of the escort police officer, the release order for Kim C1 was served until 18:30, the release order was not arrived but the suspect was sent to the P detention house. The prosecutor’s office did not communicate with the prosecutor’s office.

F) As a result, Kim C1 was not released and was detained in the P detention House, and was released by a new release order issued on the following day.

G) Meanwhile, Article 36(9) of the Rules on the Administrative Affairs of the Prosecution provides that when a decision on the review of the legality of arrest and detention is made pursuant to Article 214-2(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act or a decision on the review of the legality of arrest and detention is made pursuant to Article 214-2(7) of the same Act, the employee in charge of the administrative affairs of the case shall prepare a written command of release by a clerk No. 64 and send it to the head of the detention center, prison, or police station in which

4) Intimidation against Kim C3

A) From November 3, 2007, Kim C3 received an order from the general secretary of the District Public Prosecutor’s Office to verify facts as a person in charge of personnel affairs at the general secretary of the District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the head of the District Public Prosecutor’s Office received an order from the Plaintiff to confirm facts in relation to the suspect Kim C1. On January 30, 2009, Kim C3 called that the Plaintiff was called as follows: (a) on the other hand, due to the Plaintiff’s attitude of telephoneing, the Plaintiff became a mutual vision; (b) the Plaintiff was able to take a bath; and (c) Kim C 3 said that the Plaintiff had expressed a desire to increase, and (d) he was released for delay, and (e) would return it to the Disciplinary Committee.

B) The Plaintiff, while unilaterally taking disciplinary action against Kim C3 on the same day, called Kim C3 at around 23:36 on the same day, called her bath theory, and called her KimC3 at around 12 times from the following day to 00:50 on the 12th day of the following day, saying, “I am fry, light, and fry,” and “I am going to go to the prosecutors’ office now, I have been in the night room. I have been in the night room. I have been in the night room. I have c10 degrees above the night. I have a knife inside the night, and I am knife, and I am am knife, and I am am knife, and I am am am knife and I am am am rapidly.”

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 9, part of Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) According to Article 7 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials, a person entitled to request a disciplinary resolution, etc. shall send a copy of the request for disciplinary resolution, etc. of a public official under paragraph (6) at the same time when the person subject to disciplinary resolution, etc. requests a disciplinary resolution, etc. to the suspect. The purport of the above provision is to enable the disciplinary committee to prepare for a defense against the suspect by having the suspect become aware of whether he/she was referred to disciplinary action for any reason, and the facts of suspicion of disciplinary action, etc., stated in the statement of the grounds for disciplinary action, etc. sent to the person subject to disciplinary resolution along with the written request for disciplinary resolution, should be specified to the extent that it is possible for the person subject to disciplinary action to be identified to the extent that it does not interfere with the person subject to disciplinary action

However, the grounds of the instant disciplinary action, ①, ②, ③, and ③ do not explicitly indicate the date and place of the wrongful act, and do not seem to have any inevitable reason to make it impossible to specify it. As such, these reasons cannot be a legitimate ground of disciplinary action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is with merit.

B) As to grounds for disciplinary action (4) and (7)

According to the above facts, grounds for disciplinary action (4), (7) can be recognized as they are, and this constitutes a violation of the duty of good faith and the duty of maintaining dignity under the State Public Officials Act.

C) According to the above facts as to the grounds for disciplinary action, even if the suspect Kim C1's new disease was sent to the prosecutor's office with the records of the case, as long as it was not confined to the detention house under the prosecutor's order of confinement, there is a suspect's personal injury to the chief of the police station (the escorting police officer). Thus, the plaintiff concludes that the defendant should deliver the release order issued by the prosecutor to the escorting police officer and take measures to release the suspect, but the police officer is under investigation at the prosecutor's office, thereby resulting in an unnecessary extension of detention by failing to send the release order to the escorting police officer, which is contrary to the rules of the prosecutor's office's office affairs. Thus, the plaintiff neglected to perform his duties as a personnel in charge of the proper appellate court against

2) Determination on the second argument

When a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, it is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, it is illegal to take the disciplinary measure only when it is deemed that the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the discretion vested in the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure because the disciplinary measure as the exercise of discretion has considerably lost validity under social

If the disciplinary action against the disciplinary action has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the contents and nature of the disciplinary action, the purpose of the disciplinary action, and the criteria for disciplinary action, depending on the specific cases, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various factors such as the contents and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary action, the purpose of the disciplinary action, and the criteria for disciplinary action. In a case where it is sufficient to recognize the validity of the disciplinary action even if some of the grounds for the disciplinary action are not recognized, the disciplinary action is not unlawful even if the other grounds for the disciplinary action are recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du11813, Nov. 12, 2004).

In light of the above legal principles, there are some parts that the defendant's disciplinary action against the plaintiff, as seen earlier. However, the plaintiff, a public prosecutor, is in a position to prevent him from assisting in investigation, execution of punishment, etc. under close cooperation with other relevant agencies. Since the plaintiff's duties have a direct influence on trust and fairness in exercising prosecutor's authority, the plaintiff's duties require higher moral self-reliance and occupational awareness compared with other public officials. The plaintiff's delay in release of the suspect is highly likely to cause a situation that the suspect who should be released by neglecting his duties over two occasions within a short period of time. The plaintiff's insulting speech and behavior and intimidation against the person who should be released is more likely to cause a situation that the defendant could not release at the time. The plaintiff's Grounds for Disciplinary Action for Disciplinary Action is more reasonable than that of the public official in light of the nature of the defendant's act of violence and disciplinary action against the public official in the second stage of March 27, 2008.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges' Quota

Judges Choi Young-chul