1. The Defendant’s disciplinary action for two months of suspension from office against the Plaintiff on May 29, 2015 shall be revoked.

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

The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on February 14, 1986 and served in the Seoul Geumcheon Police Station B zone since July 15, 2013 after promotion to the police officer on March 1, 2008.

On May 29, 2015, following the resolution of the disciplinary committee, the Defendant was subject to two months of suspension from office due to the following disciplinary reasons (hereinafter “instant disciplinary reasons”).

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). From September 28, 2014 to around 14:00 to 15:00 on September 28, 2014, the Plaintiff visited the Jancheon Police Station Department to access the criminal justice information system, and provided C with information and output of the case confirmation sources related to C’s criminal proceeds concealment case without C’s request or consent without authority to inquire and output it without permission.

The Plaintiff’s act constitutes a violation of Article 14(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Digitalization of Criminal Justice Process (Protection and Prohibition of Divulgence of Criminal Justice Information), Article 3(1) and (2) of the Personal Information Protection Act (Principle of Personal Information Protection), Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, and Article 78(1)1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff asserts that the disciplinary action in this case should be revoked because it is unlawful for the following reasons, the plaintiff's assertion that the disciplinary action in this case is legitimate, as stated in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole argument.

The plaintiff, upon request by C, issued a confirmation of the fact of the accident at issue.

In light of the circumstances surrounding C’s issue of confirmation of the occurrence of the instant accident, C’s statement is not reliable. However, C’s statement is not reliable.

Even if the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has faithfully performed it as a police officer for a period of 30 years. In light of the above, a disciplinary action taken during the two-month period of suspension shall be taken against the Plaintiff.