2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on May 23, 1992 and was promoted to the police officer on December 30, 2008, and served in B police station investigation and economic criminal investigation team from July 11, 2017.

On June 13, 2019, at around 22:22, the Plaintiff, while drinking alcohol at a mutually cafeteria called “D” located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 0.176% alcohol level, was under the influence of alcohol, caused an accident that fell below the stairs while driving a car at the entrance of the above D at a level of about 50 meters.

The plaintiff spite and spite the floor even after voluntary movement as a traffic accident investigation fraternity against police officers belonging to the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan Police Station.

On July 24, 2019, the chief of the B police station requested a general disciplinary committee for police officers of the B police station to make a heavy disciplinary decision against the plaintiff on the grounds of the facts stated in the preceding B B B, and on August 8, 2019, the said general disciplinary committee decided to give an assistant to the plaintiff.

On August 13, 2019, the defendant issued a lecture in accordance with the above resolution to the plaintiff.

(2) On September 9, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the Ministry of Personnel Management (hereinafter “instant disposition”). However, the said petition review committee dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition review on October 22, 2019.

[Ground] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition is subject to the pre-determined standard of disciplinary action, which was amended on May 23, 2019, based on the following facts: (a) Party A’s evidence 1 through Party A’s evidence 4, Party A’s evidence 14, and Party B’s evidence 1 through Party B’s evidence 6; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition. Accordingly, the maximum

In addition, among the grounds for disciplinary action of the plaintiff, the period of cancellation of disciplinary action can still be mitigated, and the plaintiff was not considered at all even though there are grounds to reduce disciplinary action, such as receiving twice official commendation from the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency.