(a) the discretionary power in disciplinary action against public officials;

(b) The case holding that, where a police officer knowingly is a bribe, he/she acquired part of the money and valuables as a broker and received a large amount of money and valuables under the same name as that of the police officer, the removal disposition on the money and valuables is not a deviation of discretion;

A. Whether to take a disciplinary measure against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, but it is illegal only when the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary authority is deemed to abuse the discretionary power that has been entrusted to the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure because the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary authority has

(b) The case holding that where a police officer knowingly received money and valuables as a broker in giving and receiving money and valuables and received a large amount of money under the same name as he/she acquired part of the money and valuables, it cannot be readily concluded that a removal disposition is deviating from the scope of discretion where he/she received money and valuables.

Articles 78(1)1, 78(1)3, 56, and 61 of the State Public Officials Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu564 delivered on December 27, 1983 (Gong1984,274) 90Nu5627 delivered on February 12, 1991 (Gong1991,95) 91Nu9145 delivered on March 27, 1992 (Gong192,140)

Plaintiff

The Commissioner of the Local Police Agency

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu20704 delivered on February 16, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on October 1, 196 and was removed from office on 196.2.1 to 1, 192, and the plaintiff was released from office on 0.7 occasions on 196.2, and the non-party 2 was released from office under the jurisdiction of the Dongdaemun-gu Police Station on 12.7.2, the plaintiff was released from office for 10,000 won for 20,00 won and 200 won for 1,30,000 won for 10,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000 won for 10,000 won for 0,000 won for 10,000 won for 0,000 won for 0,000 won for 10,000 won for 0,000 won for 10,000 won for 20,000 won for 10,000.

However, the decision to decide on the disciplinary action against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official is placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action. However, the decision is unlawful only when it is recognized that a disciplinary action as an exercise of the above discretionary power has been abused by the person having authority to take the disciplinary action because it has considerably lost validity under the social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu564 delivered on December 27, 1983).

However, as determined by the court below, if the plaintiff, as a police officer, received money and valuables with knowledge that it was a bribe given in connection with illegal solicitation for parole, and he acquired part of such money and valuables, and the plaintiff's wife also received large amounts of money from the victim under the same pretext, it cannot be deemed as an act that seriously violates good faith and duty of integrity as a police officer. In light of the degree of misconduct, even if the plaintiff was given official commendation, entered books, or received the above money through several times while working as a long-term police officer, and considering all the circumstances indicated in the record, such as the fact that the plaintiff is not related to the plaintiff's duty, but compensation for damages after the death, it cannot be concluded that the defendant's disposition of this case is an illegal disposition because it excessively deviates from the scope of discretion.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the limit of discretion of disciplinary action, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)