Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a police officer who was appointed as a policeman on December 31, 2007 and was promoted to a slope on October 1, 2017, and served in B police station investigation and cyber investigation team from September 10, 2018.

B. On December 9, 2019, the B Police Officers General Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter “Disciplinary Committee”) passed a decision on the reduction of salary (one month) against the Plaintiff on the grounds specified below, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the purport thereof on the same day in accordance with the above decision.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). Police officers shall, while performing their duties, obey orders of their superior officers and shall not commit any act detrimental to their dignity, regardless of inside or outside the scope of their duties.

On November 25, 2019, the construction of the new site for B police station was conducted, and the Plaintiff, on November 26, 2019, driven his/her own vehicle (Cenz; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) around 08:34 on November 26, 2019, demanded entry to D, who was on duty in the due door of the police station (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and notified him/her that his/her vehicle could not enter because he/she was prohibited from entering, leaving the site without leaving the site and interfering with the duties of police officers belonging to B police station for about 15 minutes.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”) In addition, the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s vehicle and the police station, as seen above, insulting the Defendant’s rash to “spackers” and “weaks” to the police station that controlled access.

(2) Article 78(1)1 and 78(1)2 of the State Public Officials Act (this Act and the orders issued under this Act) are applicable to the Plaintiff’s act, which violates Articles 57 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) and 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.