The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as Inspector on March 1, 1998 and promoted to the Superintendent of the Jeju Police Station on April 23, 2014, and thereafter, was a police official in office under the control of the Jeju Police Station B from July 3, 2017.

Police Officers shall observe all relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, shall faithfully perform their duties, shall obey orders of their superior officers in performing their duties, and shall not commit any act impairing their dignity, whether inside or outside their duties;

A. Although a public official under the Decree on the Appointment of Public Officials and the Rules on the Appointment of Public Officials during the period of childcare was prohibited from using his/her child for any other purpose during the period of childcare leave, he/she applied for childcare leave for the purpose of taking part in childcare for the purpose of taking part in childcare, and then, he/she was “using his/her child for any other purpose than the purpose of childcare leave” regardless of the achievement of the purpose of childcare leave.

B. According to the report on the status of service, a public official who has not attended a law school shall faithfully prepare a report on the status of service during each quarter of the period of temporary retirement, and immediately return to the school when it is impossible or clearly violated the purpose of the report. However, the public official who has not reported the fact that he/she attended the law school intentionally reported the fact that he/she had not attended the law school eight times on the five items stating "no applicable" under the report on the status of service by concerns over the cancellation of temporary retirement.

B. On September 28, 2017, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure for two months of salary reduction in accordance with Article 78(1)1 through 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff committed a misconduct as follows and violated Articles 56, 57, and 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal review with the appeals review committee.

The appeals review committee shall take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on December 14, 2017 for two months of salary reduction.