1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was subject to suspended sentence (the suspended sentence: 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor) for the same facts constituting a violation of the Public Official Election Act. The plaintiff's act of irregularities in this case is not likely to criticize because it violates public officials' political neutrality obligations by taking advantage of his status as a public official. However, the court below determined that ① the plaintiff's act of irregularities in this case was promoted to local administrative officials and changed to B head of Gwangju Metropolitan City for a period of one month, and most of the team members, including the former head of the team, knew that he was from the election campaign official at the time, but did not accept the change of assignment, they were forced to take part in the act of irregularities in the duty of care of the plaintiff, and ② the plaintiff's team members took part in the election campaign in a systematic manner, such as maintaining the Internet news at the center of the former head of the team, and determined that the plaintiff's act of irregularities in this case's gross negligence constitutes a violation of social norms or gross negligence.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. Whether to take a disciplinary measure against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official belongs to the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, and a disciplinary measure taken by the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure is unlawful only when it is deemed that the person has abused discretionary power because it substantially loses validity under the social norms. In order to deem that a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under the social norms, the disciplinary measure should be considered based on a comprehensive consideration of various factors, including the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary measure, the administrative uniform which the person intends to achieve through the disciplinary measure, and the criteria for the determination of disciplinary measures, and the contents of the disciplinary measure should be objectively and clearly acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du6620, Sep. 24, 2002; 201Du29540, Feb. 27, 201

B. Article 7 of the Constitution provides that a public official shall be held responsible for all citizens and citizens, and the status and political neutrality of a public official shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by Act (Article 9(1)2). Accordingly, the Local Public Officials Act provides that public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes, perform their duties faithfully, and shall not participate in any political organization, such as political parties, and shall not encourage any person to vote to support or oppose a specific political party or person in an election (Article 57). Article 7 of the former Public Official Election Act (amended by Act No. 12393, Feb. 13, 2014) provides that public officials shall not engage in an election campaign or other acts that affect the result of an election (Article 60(1)4), and that public officials shall not engage in an election campaign in principle (Article 60(1)4), and Article 85(2)5 of the Local Public Officials Act provides that public officials shall not engage in an election campaign (Article 57).

다. 원심이 인정한 사실관계와 더불어 관련 법령의 내용 · 취지 등에 비추어 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, ① 선거 과정에서 공무원의 정치적 중립은 선거의 공정은 물론 헌법상 자유선거의 원칙과 정당의 기회균등원칙을 지키기 위해 반드시 필요하고, 공무원은 국민 전체에 대한 충직한 봉사자여야 함에도 그 지위를 이용하여 특정정당 또는 특정인을 위한 선거운동에 나서는 것은 공직에 대한 국민의 신뢰를 크게 훼손하고 공직 질서를 문란하게 하는 행위로서 비난가능성이 매우 높으므로 비위의 정도가 중하다고 볼 수 있는 점, ② 설령 원고가 선거운동을 주도하지 않고 소극적으로 가담하였다.는 등의 사정이 일부 있다 하더라도, 공무원의 선거 과정에서의 정치적 중립 의무 위반에 대하여는 엄격한 징계 책임을 물을 필요가 있고, 공무원은 부여된 직무를 성실하게 수행하여야 할 책무가 있으므로 자신이 원하는 직무가 아니라고 하여 직무상 의무 위반이 정당화되거나 징계양정에서 유리한 정상으로 참작될 수는 없는 점, ③ 피고의 징계양정 규칙에서 성실의무 위반과 품위유지의무 위반에 대하여 '비위 정도가 심하고 중과실이거나 비위 정도가 약하고 고의가 있는 경우'에는 '강등-정직'으로 정하고 있으므로, 원고의 비위행위는 그 정도가 심하다고 보아 강등 처분을 한 것은 피고의 징계양정 규칙에서 정한 징계양정 기준의 범위 내에 있다고 보이는 점, ④ 지방자치단체의 장이 일부 공무원을 선거운동에 동원하고 공무원이 그에 동조하는 행위는 정치적 중립성을 해치는 데 그치지 않고 공직 사회를 분열시키고, 인사상 보상과 결부되는 경우 능력주의를 요체로 하는 공무원 인사제도의 근간을 훼손하는 등 그 폐해가 심각한 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 처분의 징계 내용이 객관적으로 명백히 부당한 것으로서 사회통념상 현저하게 타당성을 잃어 징계권자에게 맡겨진 재량권을 일탈하였거나 남용한 것으로 보기 어렵다.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise based on its stated reasoning that the instant disposition was unlawful as it deviates from or abused discretion. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of discretion in disciplinary action, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won