beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.11.25 2020누35198

해임등중징계조치권고처분취소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form), except for the dismissal or addition of some of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

The first instance court’s 7th sentence “Violation of Child Welfare Act (Child Abuse)” in the 7th sentence and 4th sentence “2019 order2685” in the 4th sentence are as follows: “Child Welfare Act (child abuse) was prosecuted and sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million on August 13, 2020 (Gwanju District Court 2019 order2685), and the Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed respectively, and the appellate court’s trial (Gwanju District Court 2020No2136) is still pending.

"The grounds for recognition" in the 18th sentence of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance added "the fact that there is no dispute, that is significant to this court," and "the witness" in the 19th sentence of the first instance judgment as "the witness of the first instance court". The following is added to the 14th sentence following the 14th sentence of the first instance judgment. "A plaintiff is the president of D, and the plaintiff is not a meeting for E, but a meeting for E is not held primarily by the plaintiff, and the decision of hospitalized treatment for the purpose of treatment is not a use of hospital for control or management of E, and it is not a use of hospital for control or management of E.

However, in the course of the investigation conducted by the defendant, the anonymous facility employees working in the NAD have reported that "E performed a pairing operation without the permission of the plaintiff, and it was called from the plaintiff about 5 o'clock in the o'clock in the day.

The plaintiff was in need of notification and hospitalized treatment at a mental hospital for the necessity of measures against E.

The plaintiff needs to take such measures, E, and this reason.