1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Circumstances and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a police official who was appointed as a policeman on December 28, 1991, and was promoted to the Superintendent on September 26, 201, and served as the team leader at the National Police Agency Cyber Safety Bureau B Team (hereinafter “B Team”) from May 16, 2014 to January 24, 2016.

B. On July 10, 2018, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for the imposition of reprimand and disciplinary surcharge (42,160 won) on the ground of the following misconduct.

(hereinafter “Disposition”). On April 21, 2015, around 18:30 on April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was provided with entertainment equivalent to KRW 100,667 from the related parties of the instant business-related company (Co. E and F limited liability company) and goods (blus strus strus) equivalent to KRW 272,00. On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff violated Article 61 (Duty of Integrity) of the State Public Officials Act after being provided entertainment equivalent to KRW 49,500 from the relevant parties.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the Ministry of Personnel Management, but was dismissed on October 18, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) recognizes the fact that the Plaintiff rendered meals with job-related persons or received Blus scackers, as indicated in the facts of irregularities in the instant disposition. However, the instant meal site was not an unlawful meeting related to his duties, and Blus scackers were merely the resignation provided at the event that the Plaintiff officially attended. The Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that there was an employee of the relevant company among the persons from the said meal site until he left the meal site. In light of the progress of the instant business, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have known that there was a perception of business relationship to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant disposition was not recognized. (2) The instant disposition was made.