A. The validity of disciplinary dismissal disposition on the ground of the acceptance of bribe in a case where a verdict of innocence was rendered and became final and conclusive on the ground that the prosecution was prosecuted for the acceptance of bribe and no evidence was found in the appellate

(b)in the event of a defect in the process of a resolution, the validity of the disciplinary action.

A. In the event that the facts of acceptance of bribe, which are grounds for disciplinary action, were prosecuted and the appellate court was pronounced guilty, but the appellate court reversed and remanded, and the judgment of innocence was pronounced, and the extent of receiving the judgment of conviction in the first and second instances, if the above grounds for disciplinary action was prosecuted and the dismissal was made without evidence, it was merely a case where the dismissal was made without evidence, and it was merely a case where the facts were erroneous, and even if there were significant defects in the contents thereof, it cannot be deemed that it is apparent that it would be subject to revocation, and thus, it does not constitute grounds for invalidation.

B. Although there is a violation of law of not notifying police officers of their attendance at the disciplinary deliberation committee in the process of resolution on disciplinary action, such a ground is merely a ground for revocation of administrative disposition.

(a) Article 27 of the Police Officials Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Article 12(1) of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Police Officials, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu710 Delivered on August 20, 1985

Plaintiff-Appellee Do Governor

Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu298 delivered on April 24, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below is based on the plaintiff's assertion that the removal of the defendant prior to the final and conclusive judgment of not guilty on the facts of acceptance of bribe, which is the cause of the disciplinary action of this case, was denied prior to the final and conclusive judgment of not guilty. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the removal of the defendant was void due to significant and apparent defects, was affirmed by the appellate court, which is the cause of the disciplinary action of this case, but there was no evidence at the appellate court which was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court, and the facts became final and conclusive after the judgment of not guilty became final and conclusive, and the removal was ordered by the first and second instance court due to the cause of the above disciplinary action of this case, even if the removal was made without evidence, it was merely a mistake of facts and thus, even if there were serious defects in the contents, it cannot be deemed as obvious from appearance, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's request was unlawful, and therefore, it cannot be objectively justified in the judgment below that the defendant's action of this case constitutes a legitimate disciplinary action of this case.

2. In the instant disciplinary action, the Plaintiff deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to make a statement by forcing the Plaintiff to submit a written waiver of right to make a statement without notifying the Plaintiff to the Disciplinary Deliberation Committee for the instant disciplinary action. This is in violation of Article 12(1), (2), and (4) of the Police Officers Disciplinary Decree, and thus, the instant disposition is null and void as a matter of course. However, according to the records, there is no evidence suggesting that the written waiver of right to make a statement prepared by the Plaintiff was made by force. In addition, even if there were circumstances such as the novel’s theory in the instant disciplinary action process, such illegality is merely a cause for revocation, and thus, the assertion premised on the fact that it constitutes a cause for invalidation cannot be adopted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)