logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.17 2014구합5645
해임징계처분 감경
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on June 30, 1998, and was promoted to the Superintendent on June 1, 2006. From October 22, 2012, the Plaintiff served in the Silung Police Station B District.

The Plaintiff:

1. From September 27, 2012, the maintenance of dignity by improper acts, such as having sexual intercourses at the Plaintiff’s home and having sexual intercourses at around 21:00 on February 17, 2013, from that time until February 27, 2014, in which he/she had sexual intercourses at around 10 times on an average of 10 times a month from February 27, 2014;

2. On February 26, 2014, around 17:57, at Sinstitu City, it was found to be on the way of leaving the way to stitu in order to raise doubt and dispute about E’s male relations in front of G oil station located in the F, but E refused to communicate, and operated and run H-verification coloring, following the vehicle of one’s own possession, and caused E to report the “traffic accident.............., the police officer reported the traffic accident,” and “the police officer salking himself..............”

3. From April 15, 201 to February 26, 2014, the head of his/her affiliated agency violated the service discipline, such as setting up a real estate lease agreement under the name of J and NK, and operating a mutual sports hall called DH in C for profit in the Silung-si.

B. On March 13, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 78(1)1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 63 (Duty of Confidentiality), and 64 (Prohibition of Pecuniary Business and Concurrent Office) of the State Public Officials Act by taking into account the following disciplinary grounds (hereinafter “instant disciplinary grounds”).

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition review against the instant disposition, but the appeals review committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration filed a petition on June 25, 2014.

arrow