Kimpo-si

2.B (7070707-1)

Kimpo-si

3.C (70514-1)

Kimpo-si

4.D (750501-1)

Incheon Strengthening Group

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff Law Firm

Attorney Lee In-bok

Litigation Performers;

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

A. Plaintiff A was appointed as a police officer on October 30, 1980, and was promoted to the police officer on May 20, 1991. On March 1, 200, Plaintiff A was promoted to the police officer on May 20, 200, and served as the head of AA police station investigation and violent investigation2 team since February 21, 2005. Plaintiff B was appointed as a police officer on June 30, 2003, and was on duty at △△ Police Station investigation and violent investigation team from February 21, 2005. Plaintiff C was appointed as a police officer on March 22, 2006 to work at △△ Police Station investigation and violent investigation team from March 22, 2006 to △△ Police Station, and Plaintiff D had worked as a police officer on November 26, 2004 to △△△ Police Station from March 26, 2004 to △△△ Police Station.

B. On August 27, 2006, the deceased was arrested in the act of violating the Toxic Chemicals Control Act, and was investigated by the AA police station investigation and the AA police station investigation and the AA investigation team at the AA police station, and the B investigation team, and made a statement to the effect that he stolen precious metals of KRW 150 million from the previous prison club leaders and concealed them on the rooftop of the building located in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Maroedongdong. The △△ Police Station investigation and the B investigation team leader at the △△△ Police Station, the plaintiff A, who was the team leader, was sent the above facts from the plaintiff B and reported to the head of the investigation division, and was supported by the plaintiff D, who was a driver of the team, and was investigated by the plaintiff B and C with the above deceased, while the deceased was in the color of the lue lue B and the deceased's 15th floor of the building at the time of the death, but did not find the deceased's 15th floor of the building.

D. On September 8, 2006, the defendant violated the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act and the duty of obey under Article 57 of the same Act for the following reasons, subject to a resolution by the General Disciplinary Committee of Police Officers at AA police station, and subject to Article 78 (1) 1 and 2 of the same Act, he was subject to one-month suspension disposition against the plaintiffs under Article 78 (1) 1 of the same Act.

(1) As the head of the investigation team, the Plaintiff A, as a head of the investigation team, should verify whether the suspect was arrested and detained in the cell and escorted to the outside, and whether the suspect met all the regulations regarding the escorting of the suspect, such as the suspect, and neglected to prepare for the situation of escape, such as the suspect, and did not take appropriate measures against the suspect, even though the Plaintiff B, etc., who caused the team, did not capture the Deceased and did not take appropriate measures against the situation of escape, and the remaining deceased, who was negligent in monitoring the Deceased upon arrival at the scene, was killed following the building.

(2) The plaintiff B, C, and D, when being escorted to the outside, did not go against the suspect attraction and escorting rules and did not boom the deceased, and the remaining deceased who was negligent in monitoring the deceased without complying with the direction of the plaintiff A, the head of the team, upon arrival at the site, failed to comply with the direction of the plaintiff A, who was the head of the team, to remove the deceased under the building.

E. On October 4, 2006, the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the above disciplinary action and filed an appeal review with the Civil Service Commission. On December 5, 2006, the above appeals review committee did not participate in the time of leaving the detention room of the deceased in case of the plaintiff D on December 5, 2006, and other plaintiffs were allowed not to have been subject to the above disciplinary action if they were to drive only according to the initial direction of the head of the investigation division but were going to the roads and the rooftop of the building. In light of various circumstances, one-month period of suspension from office was changed to two months, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims were dismissed due to the lack of justifiable grounds (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition in this case").

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, Gap evidence 9, 10, Eul evidence 1-1 through 4, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 5 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs, in the course of the on-site inspection of the deceased by escorting the deceased, do not cooperate with the search of stolen articles. Thus, even if the deceased died in accordance with the escort-related provisions, the plaintiffs could not prevent the deceased from committing suicide by breaking the building on a sudden basis. In comparison with the cases of the suspect escape or suicide, the disposition of this case based on a disciplinary decision is against the principle of equity, and the plaintiffs were faithfully performing duties as police officers during that period, and funeral expenses were paid to the deceased's bereaved family members, and in light of various circumstances, the disposition of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority by excessively excessive excessive restriction.

(b) Relevant statutes;

Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act shall be observed and faithfully performed by all public officials.

Article 57 (Duty of Obedience) Any public official shall obey any order of his superior officer with respect to his duties.

(1) If a public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, a resolution on discipline shall be requested, and a disciplinary disposition shall be taken according to the result of such disciplinary resolution:

1. Where he violates this Act and any order issued under this Act;

2. When he/she violates or neglects his/her duties (including duties imposed in accordance with the status of public officials under other Acts and subordinate statutes), disciplinary action against him/her shall be classified into removal, dismissal, suspension from office, reduction of salary, and reprimand;

Article 80 (Effect of Discipline) (1) In case of suspension from office, the period of suspension from office shall be between one month and three months, and the person subject to the disposition of suspension from office shall retain his status as a public official during that period, but he shall not be engaged in his duties, and his remuneration shall

(2) The reduction of salary shall reduce the remuneration by one-third during the period of not less than a month but not more than three months.

Article 45 (Application), except as otherwise provided in the Regulations, with respect to the escort of persons under guard. The definition of terms used in this Chapter shall be defined as follows:

1. the term "Escort officer" means a police officer assigned to escorting service of a person under guard;

Article 47 (Responsibility for Escort) (1) The head of a defense agency (referring to a criminal charge and the head of an investigation division in cases of a local police agency; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall manage, direct and supervise the escorting of persons under guard.

(2) The chief of the district police agency or the chief of the criminal investigation division and the chief of the police station shall direct and supervise the escorting service of the escorted person as the officer in charge of the escort and confirm the safety and appropriateness of the escort.

(3) The chief of a police station shall have a police officer in charge of the escort conduct general culture necessary for performing the duties of escorting police officers immediately before the arrival of the escort.

(4) In conducting the culture pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (3), it shall be carried out closely with the depth preparation, method of riding and correction, method of passage, such as the side of the road or the bridge, method of interim liaison and report, method of taking measures when an accident occurs, board and lodging, method of delivering the purchase of goods, method of selling the goods, directions for the use of the side and the meals.

(5) The head of a security office shall formulate and implement a escort plan for the designation and management of escorting officers.

Article 50 (Arrest of Persons Escorted by Guard) (1) Before the departure of the escorting government office, the escorting officer shall, without fail, keep the person under guard and capture him/her on board: Provided, That he/she shall not take the locks for those who have been sentenced to detention or detention order, and those whose residence and status are reliable among the aged, the disabled, and the patients, and who are unlikely to flee.

(2) When there are two or more persons under guard, the person under guard shall capture them for each person under guard pursuant to paragraph (1), and shall connect two to five persons according to the means of escort and capture them.

(3) The officer in charge of the escorting shall confirm the appropriateness of the capture made by the escorter pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article:

1. In cases of escorting one person under guard, the person under guard shall take the line in hand from a location on the left or right side of the person under guard to the acceptance authority or the specific person;

Article 62 (Cautions to Observe during Escort) An escorting officer shall observe the following matters in the course of escort:

5. The locks or ropes who capture persons under guard shall not change or unfasten them until escorting is completed, except for the cases of unfasing only one part of them for necessary hours when treating, using, and eating for a disease;

Article 63 (Duties of Escorts) The Escorts shall faithfully perform the following matters during the service of escort:

1. Command and order of the head of an escort office or a police officer in charge of escort;

2. Prevention of escape, destruction of evidence, self-injury, act of suicide, etc. of an inmate under guard;

Article 64 (Limitation of Liability of Escort) In order to escort, the escorter shall be held liable for the provisions of Article 63, from the time he/she takes over the escort to the time he/she completes the escort and takes over the receiving authority.

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by the evidence Nos. 3-1 to 4, No. 7-1 to 7, No. 8 and 18, and the whole purport of the arguments.

(A) On August 8, 2003, the Deceased was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the violation of the Toxic Chemicals Control Act, such as the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the thief) and the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the thief). However, on August 26, 2006, the Deceased was arrested as a flagrant offender in the violation of the Toxic Chemicals Control Act while inhaleing the dyke as seen earlier.

(B) C, the head of △△ Police Station on the day of the instant case, after receiving a report from the Plaintiff A, the head of the strong investigation team, was in custody of the deceased, found the site, and ordered the deceased to verify whether to conceal the stolen. Accordingly, the Plaintiff B and C attempted to capture the deceased at the detention room for the purpose of escort, but it was difficult for the deceased to fully refuse to cooperate with the search of stolen goods, without using the ropes.

C) Meanwhile, the head of the investigation division instructed the Plaintiff D to drive the vehicle to the site in relation to which the rest of the strong investigation2 team was on duty at the time.

(D) The Plaintiffs, along with the Deceased, discovered the 15th floor of the Main Complex Building that the Deceased was identified as the 15th floor of the Main Complex Building, when they concealed stolen objects, were found to be stolen by the Plaintiff B and D while monitoring the Deceased. However, the Plaintiff, A, and C, who was the deceased, went up under the building beyond a rail of approximately 65 cm in height of the Plaintiff B and D and 7 meters.

(E) The above accident was reported to various media such as daily newspapers, and the bereaved family members of the deceased filed a lawsuit against the State for damages by Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap108973, and the above court did so.

On June 8, 2007, the deceased had been punished as a violation of the Toxic Chemicals Control Act several times, and once again, there was an abnormal psychological state due to fear of punishment and fear of punishment as a flagrant offender prior to the occurrence of the accident. Since the plaintiffs who are police officers seem to have been able to anticipate the psychological condition of the deceased, they were able to look at the deceased before the start of the police station, and have a duty of care to prevent any contingent accident, such as suicide, by carefully monitoring his behavior before the start of the police station, on the ground that the deceased expressed his intention to refuse to cooperate with the deceased by neglecting surveillance on the ground that he was negligent in failing to prevent the accident due to failure to prevent the occurrence of the accident, and thus, they ordered the bereaved families to pay consolation money and funeral expenses totaled KRW 23,313,300, and damages for delay.

(2) On the other hand, when a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the person subject to disciplinary action is at the discretion of the person subject to disciplinary action. However, if the disciplinary measure taken as the exercise of discretionary power is deemed to have abused the discretion taken by the person subject to disciplinary action because it has considerably lost validity under social norms, the measure is unlawful.

As acknowledged earlier, ① in the case where the Deceased’s disposal of the Defendant was carried out by Nonparty B and D, and the Defendant’s disposal was carried out on the ground of his own, and the Defendant’s disposal was carried out on the ground that it is difficult to predict that the Defendant would commit suicide on the rooftop even if the Deceased was arrested on the ground that the Defendant could have carried out a disciplinary measure against the Defendant, by failing to comply with the relevant regulations to ensure that the Defendant would have carried out a safe escape and self-harm as alleged by the Defendant. In light of the above circumstances and circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant could have carried out a new emergency arrest measure against the Defendant for the purpose of taking advantage of the suspect’s duty to arrest the Defendant, and that the Defendant could not take a disciplinary measure against the Defendant without complying with the instant regulations, even if the Plaintiffs were able to wear the Deceased by using his seat on the ground of his own, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant could have carried out a new emergency arrest measure against the Defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges