정직처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a police officer who was appointed as a policeman on July 1, 2002 and served as a slope belonging to B police station from August 5, 2016 to the present.
B. In around 2002, the Plaintiff became aware of high school ships and C engaged in entertainment business and maintained personal friendly relations.
C From December 14, 2005 to December 14, 2005, C has been operating a entertainment bar or entertainment tavern (D: D: from December 14, 2005 to August 31, 2009; E: June 26, 2015; and G: September 18, 2015). The Plaintiff continuously leased C with C, from September 23, 2008, KRW 50,000 (interest KRW 50,000,000 per month), and continuously leased C, from September 6, 2013; KRW 10,000 on August 10, 2015; KRW 10,000 on August 10, 2015; and KRW 10,000 on June 20, 2015; and KRW 10,000 on May 16, 2015, respectively.
C. Meanwhile, from around December 2010 to the police organization, one-line police officer’s “the instant system” (hereinafter “instant system”) was implemented nationwide, under the provision that prohibits a police officer from having personal contact with a police-related business establishment (including a senior entertainment business establishment as well as a entertainment business establishment, but it was excluded from a dan by improving the system in around 2015) (i.e., reporting in advance and after-the-spot at the time of contact).
On October 19, 2016, the General Disciplinary Committee of the B police station decided to dismiss the Plaintiff by applying the duty of good faith, the duty of obey, and the duty of maintain dignity under Articles 78(1), 56, 57, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, on the ground that “The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on October 20, 2016, pursuant to the above resolution, on the ground that it violated the duty of follow-up, the duty of follow-up, and the duty of follow-up, and Article 78(1), 56, 57, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, on the ground that “The Plaintiff was engaged in money transactions with C at a police business establishment that is a person related to his duties under the Police Officers’ Code of Conduct, and did not make any report on personal contact without permission during the process.”
E. The plaintiff is therefore.