1. The Defendant’s reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff on December 2, 2014 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on January 11, 2013, and served in B police station’s senior police officer and senior police officer from February 17, 2014, and was promoted to the senior police officer on August 18, 2014.

B. On December 2, 2014, the Defendant issued a reprimand against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1), 1, and 2 of the State Public Officials Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 57 (Duty of Fidelity), and 60 (Duty of Confidentiality) of the State Public Officials Act, following the grounds for disciplinary action as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") The traffic police service management system shall include a large number of personal information in a system that electronically processes the affairs related to the traffic police, such as driver's license, administrative disposition, traffic regulation, and traffic accidents, so it shall be used only for the performance of duties related to the traffic police in accordance with the

Nevertheless, on September 24, 2014, on September 55, 2014, the Plaintiff received a police call from a police officer D, who was a party to the act of injury to dignity that occurred prior to the preceding day, using a police officer-only PC installed in the first floor and the night watch room of the police station, connected the Plaintiff to the integrated portal, sent the Plaintiff’s ID to the traffic police service management system, sent the personal information to the police officer’s address, and perused the personal information for private use.

The Plaintiff, as a person in charge of ordinary guard and security, must manage confidential and security documents and personal information more thoroughly than anyone, and received several instructions, culture, etc. to prohibit the use of personal information for private purposes, as above, he/she inquired the licensing ledger without permission, and verified the address of the police officer in charge and perused personal information for private purposes.

The above act intentionally violates Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 57 (Duty of Uniforms), and 60 (Duty of Confidentiality) of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 4 (Criteria for Decision of Disciplinary Action of Police Officers) of the Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc. of Police Officers.