1. On February 26, 2018, the chief of C police station shall revoke a reprimand disposition issued to the Plaintiff A.

2. The plaintiff B's claim is dismissed.

3...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff A is a police officer who was first appointed as a policeman on June 10, 1992 and served in the C police station from July 17, 2013 to July 17, 2013 after promotion to the police officer on July 10, 2012.

Plaintiff

B is a police officer who was first appointed as a policeman on December 29, 1990 and served in the C police station from February 11, 201 to February 201 after promotion to the Inspector on March 1, 201.

B. At around 15:00 on August 6, 2017, Plaintiff A consulted with D (hereinafter “victim”) who found the police station due to violence, intimidation, etc. of male-child group (hereinafter “victim”) while on duty at the C police station criminal office and the office of the C police station, and Plaintiff B consulted with the victim while on duty at the C police station criminal office and the office of the C police station on August 8, 2017.

On August 9, 2017, the victim suffered from the assault, etc. from the perpetrator who drive away by tracking the location of the victim.

C. The chief of C police station requested a disciplinary committee for police officers of C police station (hereinafter “instant disciplinary committee”) to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs on grounds of disciplinary reasons, such as “the Plaintiff provided passive and unfaithful counseling, such as having the Plaintiff apply for personal protection without seriously recognizing the situation of the victim, or receiving a written complaint without taking measures such as filing an ex officio application, etc., and violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and 59 (Duty of Good Faith) of the State Public Officials Act.”

On February 23, 2018, the instant disciplinary committee decided to reprimand the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ act of violating their obligations is recognized.

Accordingly, on February 26, 2018, the chief of C police station rendered a disposition that the plaintiffs shall be punished by a reprimand pursuant to Article 78(1)1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant reprimand disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Attached Form 2 of the relevant legislation.