1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff A was appointed as a policeman on June 17, 1989, and was promoted to the police officer on March 30, 2007, and thereafter served in the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency, Pyeongtaek Police Station, from February 19, 2013.

Plaintiff

B was appointed as a policeman on November 5, 1992, and served in the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency from February 18, 2009, after promotion to the police officer on October 1, 2013.

Plaintiff

C was appointed as a policeman on July 12, 1997, and was promoted to a slope on December 1, 2009, and served at the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency on February 1, 2012.

On October 28, 2013, from around 22:39 to 23:38 of the same day, the Plaintiffs reported 112 to the effect that “criminal four persons, among the work on duty, engage in drinking alcohol by having two women who are women who are women who are suffering from business owners, enjoy entertainment from the head of the offline, which was licensed to operate a general restaurant located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City F, Osan-si, Gyeonggi-do.”

B. On December 18, 2013, according to the resolution of the ordinary disciplinary committee of police officers of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure for two-month reduction of pay according to Article 78(1)1 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that “the following actions by the Plaintiffs violate the duty of good faith) and Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.”

C. The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an appeal with the appeals review committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration, and on April 23, 2014, the said appeals review committee mitigated the Plaintiffs from salary reduction for two months from the salary reduction for the Defendant’s disciplinary action on December 18, 2013, on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ act of violating their duties constitutes grounds for disciplinary action, but there are circumstances to mitigate the amount of the Plaintiffs’ act of violating their duties.

(hereinafter) The Defendant’s disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs on December 18, 2013, which was changed to 1 month of salary reduction (hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【The ground for recognition” did not have any dispute, and the number of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Nos. 1 through 25 is each number.