감봉처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition of salary reduction for three months that the Plaintiff rendered on November 12, 2015 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On February 25, 1995, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on March 31, 1999, and was promoted to the police officer on December 31, 2004, as a slope, as well as as on July 1, 2012, respectively. From August 15, 2014, the Plaintiff served in B and C in the Dongdaemun Police Station (hereinafter “Dongdong Documents”).
On September 2 through September 4, 2015, the Seoul Dobong Police Station’s indoor shooting range (hereinafter “instant shooting training”) related to the shooting of the company (hereinafter “instant shooting training”), and ① the same letter B and slope D (education department) of the same kind, which the Plaintiff did not participate in the shooting of the company, provided shooting assistant with a proxy shooting assistant, such as shooting the company.
(2) On September 2015, 2015, after the shooting was terminated, the Plaintiff violated a direction-making order, such as signing his/her own seal, with the knowledge that it was an agent shooting.
(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”). (b)
On November 12, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension from office for one month to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1)1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act due to the following reasons.
C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition review on December 7, 2015. On February 26, 2016, the appeals review committee notified the Plaintiff of a decision to change the disposition of suspension from office for one month to three months of salary reduction.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), . [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, and 10, Eul evidence No. 31 (including relevant branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In full view of the facts stated in the evidence No. 4 and the purport of the entire argument as to the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1, the Plaintiff did not request D who is in charge of the instant shooting training to have an agent shooting, and D who did not participate in shooting training on September 4, 2015 without justifiable grounds and notified D of the hearing to the Plaintiff who was in charge of the instant shooting training and the Plaintiff who was in charge of the same workplace workers.