2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on July 27, 2012, and was promoted to the Superintendent on March 11, 2014, and served in B police station from July 9, 2014 (hereinafter “B”).

On September 2 through September 4, 2015, in relation to the shooting of the regular shooting range conducted within the C police station’s indoor shooting range (hereinafter “instant shooting training”), the Plaintiff claimed a proxy shooting for the same police officer and assistant D (department in charge of education) in the first half of the year, which was conducted on September 2, 2015 (hereinafter “instant shooting training”). On August 2, 2015, the Plaintiff violated an instruction order, such as signing a letter of shooting, which had D slope around September 7, 2015, after the shooting was completed.

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 on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff asserts that the existence of a disciplinary cause does not constitute a fact upon D's request for a proxy attack.

However, in full view of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, part of Eul evidence Nos. 11 and the purport of Eul evidence Nos. 11, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff, when establishing a shooting plan around August 2015, Eul, Eul, who is in charge of education, "B was at the site of a fire in the shooting range," and that the plaintiff, although minor, there were only few images being treated in a shooting range, the plaintiff, who requested the shooting of the shooting range, was at the site of a fire in the event of a shooting range."

In addition, the fact that the Plaintiff participated in the shooting training of this case, D caused shooting assistants to shoot an empty site, and caused a proxy shooting for the Plaintiff. After the shooting training of this case was completed, the fact that the Plaintiff signed the shooting-related documents, such as a landmark around September 7, 2015, with knowledge that it was an agent shooting, does not conflict between the parties.

Then.