1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 5, 2001, the Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on July 1, 201, and was promoted to the police officer on July 1, 2015. From July 18, 2015, the Plaintiff served as the B B commander of the Police Agency, Gyeonggi-do Provincial Police Agency, Gyeonggi-do Police Agency, 126 (hereinafter “126 police officer”).

B. On May 2, 2016, the Defendant neglected to work for the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 and Article 57 of the State Public Officials Act by neglecting to work for the Plaintiff on April 8, 2016, on the ground that, around April 2016, the Plaintiff neglected to work for the Plaintiff on the following day without going through the procedures for the use of alternative leave even though the Plaintiff was delivered with the designation of the work for the work for the Sewol ferry and the work for the Plaintiff on the following day, and violated Article 78(1)1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act.

C. On August 9, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disciplinary action, and the appeals review committee recognized the Plaintiff’s absence from office without permission, and it violated Articles 56, 57, and 58 of the State Public Officials Act, but made a decision to change the disposition of salary reduction for one month on the ground that the disposition of salary reduction for one month is somewhat excessive.

The "disposition of disciplinary action changed to a reprimand disposition" shall be referred to as the "disposition of this case."

(ii) [based grounds for recognition] non-contentious facts, as described in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 6 (if any, including each number), the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. On April 8, 2016, the Defendant asserted that the instant disposition was lawful on the grounds of the disposition and the relevant relevant statutes, and the Plaintiff did not appear without permission on the ground that he/she expressed his/her intent to use the substitute leave through the Kakao Kakao, which is the Messen program on April 8, 2016, but did not appear without permission. The time of absence without permission is only two hours and 30 minutes, and the degree of the breach of duty is minor, and the Plaintiff should use the substitute leave through e-person approval.