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

The plaintiff is a person who has worked as a slope at the Seoul Dongdaemun Police Station B police team.

On May 1, 2018, the plaintiff was pointed out that he did not comply with the order of direct report prior to applying for leave for health examinations from the B police commander.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff argued that, while asking the superintendent of the police division, who was in charge of the general affairs of B police division, was asked by telephone to ask the superintendent of the police division who was in charge of the above instructions, the above instructions have not been properly delivered, the Plaintiff expressed his desire to the effect that “this x x x x x x x sturine.”

On July 12, 2018, the Seoul Dongdaemun Police Station General Disciplinary Committee ("the General Disciplinary Committee") is against the Plaintiff.

Recognizing the facts stated in the paragraph, and on the ground that the above disciplinary action constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain dignity and a violation of the duty to maintain good faith, a decision was made for one month of salary reduction under Article 56, Article 63, or Article 78 (1) 1 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act, and accordingly, the defendant was subject to one month of salary reduction on the same day.

Accordingly, the appeal review committee of the Ministry of Personnel Management, upon filing an appeal review, decided to reduce the disciplinary action against the plaintiff as a reprimand on September 20, 2018. Accordingly, the defendant changed the details of disciplinary action against the plaintiff to reprimand on October 15, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was mitigated due to reprimand, on July 12, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”), / (based on recognition), without any dispute, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the Plaintiff’s disposition of the instant disposition as to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 14, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an error of law by misunderstanding Eul’s telephone during the instant disposition, which had not been cut off, and there was no intention to criticize or insult the Gyeong.

Nevertheless, the disposition of this case was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as the plaintiff made a direct bath to the funeral C.

Judgment

Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, 5, 21.