The meaning of "when he commits an act detrimental to his prestige or dignity, regardless of whether he is on or off duty," which is a cause for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) 3 of the State Public Officials Act.

The reason for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) 3 of the State Public Officials Act refers to a case where a public official, who is a sovereign citizen, is in violation of the duty to maintain dignity as a public official’s status, and has committed an act directly affecting the prestige or dignity of a public official who is in the position of a citizen or in the service provider of the citizen, and is in violation of the duty to maintain dignity. Thus, if such violation of duty was committed, the reason for disciplinary action shall be deemed to exist even if it is not criminal liability.

Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea Customs Service

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu49 delivered on October 10, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

When collecting evidence at the time of the original trial based on the records of the case, it is sufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's misconduct at the time of the original trial which the defendant dismissed the plaintiff, and it cannot be caused by violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the incomplete hearing. Therefore, the appeal shall not be accepted merely because it merely criticizes the confirmation of facts falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court.

2. As to the second ground for appeal:

The reason for disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) 3 of the State Public Officials Act, regardless of whether it is within or outside the scope of duties, is against the duty to maintain dignity as a public official. Thus, it refers to a case where a public official, who is a sovereign citizen, is in the position of a public official or in the position of a public official, has a direct influence on damaging the prestige and dignity of the public official. Thus, if such violation of the duty was committed, it shall be deemed that the act constitutes a reason for disciplinary action regardless of the existence of criminal liability even if it is not a criminal liability.

The issue is that the criminal case against the plaintiff's misconduct, which became the cause of the disciplinary action of this case, was pronounced not guilty, and thus, it cannot be the cause of disciplinary action under Article 78 (1) 3 of the State Public Officials Act, or even if the defendant was found not guilty against the plaintiff, this is merely a legal evaluation under the criminal punishment law, and it is a separate evaluation from the facts of the cause of the disciplinary action. Thus, the argument of the appeal is without merit.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 3

Since the Act grants discretionary authority to an administrative agency, it is intended to have it most appropriate and reasonable for the public interest and to have it properly exercise in light of the nature of the administrative act and its administrative purpose and the reasoning, the discretionary power is limited among the cases of free discretion, and it does not have any uniform standard. Therefore, it should be reasonably determined by collecting the existence of the former part, whether there is a defect in the confirmation of facts, equality, and proportionality.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff was dismissed as a disciplinary action against the plaintiff since the plaintiff made an illegal solicitation by using his position, received goods related thereto, and left the workplace without any justifiable reason, and therefore there is no violation of law in the decision that the plaintiff was dismissed as a disciplinary action against the plaintiff even if there was a fact of reward and its official fact

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of 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 Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)