The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a police officer newly appointed as a policeman on June 26, 1982 and promoted for continuous service as of September 1, 2007.

On July 27, 2009, the Plaintiff was issued as the zone B of the police station Kim Jong-dong on and around February 4, 2010, and served as the two team leader from February 4, 201, and served as the C police box of the police station Kim Jong-dong on and around February 13, 201, and served as the zone D of the police station of the Chang-won Police station since October 18, 201.

Although police officers cannot do harm to their dignity, such as an order to prohibit sexual intercourses or a police-related establishment subject to the police officer's contact, the Plaintiff caused the water by using a unsound sexual intercourses, such as ① the Einsian business proprietor F (M, 64 years old, Appellants) and the 16th sexual intercourses, which were known during the police officer's patrol in early September 201, and the 16th sexual intercourses.

② The Plaintiff frequently visited Eins, which is a sexual traffic business establishment that is likely to leak control information for a more than one year even after receiving an order to prohibit access to the relevant business establishment and phone contact, and violated an order to prohibit access to the relevant business establishment, such as neglecting his/her duties as a police officer, by receiving meals from the business owner and multiple outs calls.

③ The Plaintiff, as a police officer, injured the petitioner’s dignity inside and outside of office, such as having the petitioner keep the register of real estate or having him/her lend money and valuables on several occasions.

B. On April 11, 2013, the General Disciplinary Committee for Police Officers in the Chang Police Station decided on dismissal pursuant to Article 78(1)1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Good Faith), and 63 (Duty of Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act as follows.

On April 15, 2013, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff according to the result of the above disciplinary resolution.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.

The plaintiff is an appeals review committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration.