Guang-si

소송대리인 법무법인 米米

[Defendant, Appellant]

소송수행자 박☆

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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was appointed as a police officer on September 7, 1991 and served in the military police station criminal division from February 14, 2007 to the police officer on October 21, 199, and the police officer on August 7, 2006.

B. On June 7, 2010, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1)1 through 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 56(1) of the State Public Officials Act due to the following disciplinary resolution by a general disciplinary committee for police officers of the Military Police Station.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Accordingly, on July 5, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the appeals review committee for revocation of the instant disposition with the Ministry of Public Administration and Security on July 5, 2010. On September 9, 2010, the said appeals review committee changed the removal disposition against the Plaintiff to the removal disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9 (including each lot number No. 1) and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Considering the fact that the Plaintiff worked in good faith without being subject to any criminal punishment or disciplinary action other than the instant disposition, and the physical damage degree of the victim of the instant accident is light, and the victim and the employee union fee, etc. submitted a written application, the instant disposition is deemed an abuse of discretionary power, and thus, the disadvantage suffered by the Plaintiff is much higher than the public interest that the Plaintiff achieved as a result.

(b) Statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

(1) In a case where a disciplinary action is imposed against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, it is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action. However, the disciplinary action is unlawful only when it is deemed that the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, as an exercise of discretionary authority, deviates from or abused the authority to take the disciplinary action, and if the disciplinary action is deemed to be an illegal disposition, which is considerably unfair from the scope of discretionary authority because it has considerably lost validity under the social norms, depending on specific cases, it shall be deemed that the contents of the disciplinary action are objectively and clearly inappropriate when comprehensively taking into account various factors, such as characteristics of performing duties, the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary action, administrative purpose to achieve by the disciplinary action, criteria for a disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du1458 delivered on April 27, 199).

(2) (A) Police Officers implementing the Act are public officials performing the duties of police officers, such as the crackdown on the driving of a motor vehicle, the duty of protecting the body and property of the people from criminals, who are in charge of the duties of public security, and require a higher level of morality than the general public. In the situation where the emergency alert order is lowered, the Plaintiff, as police officers, caused a traffic accident involving physical damage by driving under a relatively high level of alcohol level of 0.24% during working hours after drinking alcohol level, while driving under a relatively high level of alcohol level of 0.24% after working hours. (b) The Plaintiff was indicted of KRW 3 million on June 16, 2010 for violating the Traffic Act at the ○○○○○ District Public Prosecutor’s Office of ○○ on the ground of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff was subject to the cancellation of a driver’s license on July 11, 2010, which caused physical damage to the Plaintiff due to a traffic accident under attached Table 4 [Article 3].

However, the Plaintiff, while working as a police officer for 19 years, has faithfully worked without being subject to any criminal punishment or disciplinary action other than the instant disposition. (b) The instant accident occurred after a day and time, and contributed to the maintenance of public order by arresting a majority of the people who committed a crime of infringement of life while serving in the military police officer, (c) the degree of damage is minor, and the Plaintiff’s total sum recovery of damage with the victim and the victim. (h) The Plaintiff lives with two women who are divorced from his/her office and divorced, and one knife, making it difficult for him/her to support the principle of disciplinary action 16 times in total, including four official commendation of the Commissioner of the Office of Review during his/her term of office, and according to Article 9 of the Rules on Police Officers, etc., the Plaintiff’s physical act of disciplinary action is deemed to have been mitigated as a ground for disciplinary action when a police officer, etc. was given official official beyond the scope of disciplinary action, and according to Article 4 of the Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc., the Plaintiff’s physical act of disciplinary action.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Yellow Gyeong-Gyeong

Judges Min Jong-nam