[파면처분취소 ][하집1995-2, 441]
Whether the removal of a police officer from office is legitimate in a case where the police officer illegally issued his/her driver's license and left his/her place of work damaged by detention, but it was revealed as a criminal act by a third party (negative)
Considering that police officers were subject to a disciplinary measure in relation to the illegal issuance of driver's license and were subject to detention, but they were found to have committed a crime by a third party, the escape from a workplace constitutes a police officer in violation of the duty of good faith and duty of prohibition of escape from a workplace. However, considering that police officers were given a 23 official commendation including a commendation of the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency while they did not have previously been subject to a disciplinary measure before and hold office in 21 years, the choice of the most severe dismissal during the disciplinary measure constitutes a case where a disciplinary measure is taken.
Articles 58 and 78 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 2(1) and 4(1)2 of the Regulations on Disciplinary Punishment, etc. of Public Officials, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Supreme Court Decision 69Nu34 Decided July 8, 1969 (No. 17-2, 55) Supreme Court Decision 85Nu18 Decided September 9, 1986 (Gong1986, 1392)
Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Sang-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Commissioner of Busan Metropolitan City Local Police Agency
1. The defendant's removal on June 16, 1994 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Details of the instant disposition
The plaintiff was in charge of traffic control, revocation of license and administrative litigation at the Busan Regional Police Agency and the Busan Local Police Agency's license examination site between October 20, 1992 and December 23, 1993. The plaintiff was in charge of traffic control, administrative litigation. The plaintiff was in charge of traffic control, revocation of license and administrative litigation at the Busan Local Police Agency's Busan Local Police Agency's Office's investigation division from December 24, 1993 to June 16, 1994, with respect to the fact that the driver's license was issued unlawfully to non-party 1 at the time of working at the Busan Local Police Agency's investigation division and investigation division, and the second investigation division of the same month on June 10, 1994, but was returned to 09:00 and did not leave the workplace without attendance at the request of 9:00, but did not deviate from the duty to maintain dignity under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 57 of the same Act and Article 163 of the same Act.
2. Determination on the illegality of the instant disposition
Although the plaintiff did not issue the driver's license of the non-party 1 at the time of working in the Busan Southern District Licensing Examination Office, the investigator belonging to the Busan District Police Agency forced the above non-party 1 and the non-party 33 to make a false confession by forcing the plaintiff to request a detention warrant even if the plaintiff denies while handling the plaintiff, and forced the plaintiff to attend the investigation department of the Busan District Police Agency on June 10, 1994 and undergo an investigation: 0900 on June 10, 1994, the plaintiff did not leave the place of work for 6 days at an uneasible mind. After the issuance of the non-party 1's license, it was revealed that the non-party 2 was a criminal act of the non-party 2, and it was convicted that the above non-party 2 was subject to the defendant's dismissal of the plaintiff's discretionary authority after the acceptance of the bribery and the offering of the bribe against the plaintiff related to the non-party 1's illegal license.
In full view of the purport of the plaintiff's testimony at the Busan High Police Agency's 1 through 6, 1 through 7, the plaintiff was forced to attend the Busan High Police Agency's 1 to 200,000 Busan High Police Agency's 9: The plaintiff was working at the Busan High Police Agency's 200,000 Busan High Police Agency's 9,000 Busan High Police Agency's 9:0,000 Busan High Police Agency's 9:6,000,000 Busan High Police Agency's 9,000 Busan High Police Agency's 9:6,000,000 Busan High Police Agency's 9,000,000 Busan High Police Agency's 9:6,000,000 Busan High Police Agency's 9:6,000,000 Won High Police Agency's 9,000,0000,000,000 won.
However, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff held office as a police officer for 21 years from March 20, 1973 until June 16, 194, which was the date of the disposition in this case, and received 23 times an official commendation, including the official commendation of the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, and there is no evidence to prove that there is no record of disciplinary action. As seen earlier, the disciplinary measure against the plaintiff is a deviation from office, which violates the duty of good faith as a police officer, duty of prohibition of escape, but the Regulation on the Punishment, etc. of Public Officials (Ordinance No. 251 of July 14, 1981) provides that the plaintiff's dismissal of the public official who has been subject to disciplinary action is not subject to the duty of good faith (limited to the duty of dismissal) as of the disciplinary action in the case of the head of the agency, and that the public official is subject to disciplinary action is subject to the removal of his or her intention of disciplinary action while he or she is subject to the removal from office.
3. Conclusion
Ultimately, the defendant's removal of this case is illegal because it constitutes a case where a disciplinary decision is completed, and thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation thereof is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Ahn Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)