2012Guhap1025 Revocation of revocation of dismissal

Y(68 years old, south)

Doz.

Law Firm Lee-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-chul

The Commissioner of the Gyeonggi Police Agency

Litigation Performers Lee 88

January 17, 2013

February 19, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on December 2, 201 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on September 26, 1992, and was promoted to the police officer on November 8, 2006. From June 29, 2010 to February 9, 201, the Plaintiff served as the three heads of sexual assault groups in the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency, and from February 10, 201 to February 10, 201, as the two heads of the Criminal Police Station and the two heads of the strong police stations.

B. On December 2, 2011, the General Disciplinary Committee on Police Officers at Police Station decided a heavy disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the following misconduct and violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith), 57 (Duty of Integrity), 61 (Duty of Integrity), 63 (Duty of Integrity), 14 (Restriction on Receiving Money and Valuables) and 16 (Prohibition of Borrowing, etc.) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D) 0

NA (NA)

因因

因区

D)

0)

⊙

⊙⊙

C. The Plaintiff filed a request for review of the instant disposition, but the Appellate Board of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on May 3, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, (1) evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and 50, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The non-existence of the grounds for disposition

A) On 190, before the Plaintiff becomes a police officer, he was aware of in the same gymnasium in around 1990. Around 2006, the Plaintiff was a relative-gu where the Plaintiff was working as the head of the criminal affairs team of the Southern Police Station and was making it difficult for him to communicate again while serving as the head of the criminal affairs team of the Southern Police Station. It is only a person who has been working for the Plaintiff to commit a crime, and it does not fall under any type of "person related to duties" stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency, and is not a person affiliated with the Plaintiff's duties. Therefore, the Plaintiff calculated the drinking value with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not transfer the drinking value to the Plaintiff's subordinate staff who calculated the drinking value in lieu of the drinking value. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Plaintiff or received money from the Plaintiff upon his request, the Plaintiff did not receive money from the Plaintiff.

B) The Plaintiff did not know that ○○ had paid the drinking value instead of the judgment. Before February 10, 201, 201, the Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that ○○ was the subject of an investigation. Therefore, even if ○○ calculated the drinking value, there was no perception that the Plaintiff received money and valuables from a person related to his duties even if ○ calculated the drinking value.

C) The Plaintiff did not receive sexual intercourse as stated in the grounds for disposition 1 - (1). The last confirmation reveals that door ○○ paid sexual traffic expenses regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent, but the Plaintiff returned the female employees following the Plaintiff.

D) The money that the Plaintiff received from Dec. 23, 2010 and delivered to Jeon XX is nothing more than the settlement of accounts that was made by calculating the drinking value 9,40,000 won in the drinking place where the former amount was located together with the former amount. In light of such circumstances, the said KRW 500,000 won cannot be deemed as money and valuables received from a skilled person.

E) On December 30, 2010, one of the two soldiers, who was feled on December 30, 2010, returned immediately around that time, and paid 500,000 won to the first instance court for the remaining one disease, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received money and valuables from the first instance court.

F) On February 10, 201, one million won delivered to literature ○○, which was delivered on February 10, 201, was returned by literature ○, with the knowledge of the fact that he calculated the drinking value prior to the towing, and does not turn back whether ○○ was aware of the fact that he received entertainment from literature ○○ was an organized violent crime. Therefore, it is difficult to view such an act by the Plaintiff as a breach of the duty to maintain dignity or as a lending or providing money to a person related to his duties.

G) On April 201, 201, after being called from the first police officer, a call was made to verify the facts thereof, and the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that a warrant of arrest was issued to Do○ was issued. Therefore, the Plaintiff could not take appropriate measures such as arrest as a police officer. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have committed negligence of duties.

2) The assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

Even if the Plaintiff’s misconduct is recognized, in full view of the intent of having access to the Plaintiff by both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and that the instant disposition depends on the Plaintiff’s unilateral statement, etc., the instant disposition was unlawful since it was committed by deviating from or abusing the right to discretion on disciplinary action.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the existence of the reason for the disposition

A) In the first instance whether the official of this National Police Agency constitutes “person related to his duties” under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of this National Police Agency (related to the grounds of paragraphs 1 through 3)

(1) (1) If the purport of the whole pleadings is added to the statements in (1) Nos. 3, 6, 7, 19 through 21, and 45, the following facts are recognized:

① From June 29, 2010 to February 9, 2011, the affairs under the jurisdiction of the Plaintiff, who were working as the head of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency for the metropolitan investigation team, shall be children under the age of 13 in most cases of sexual assault against children under the age of 13.

It was to support or share the duties of one team of sexual assault, which is to take full charge of investigation and to deal exclusively with sexual violence cases against victims of children and persons with disabilities, and to investigate general sexual violence crimes.

② From May 3, 2010 to April 20, 2011, the entertainment drinking house operated under the trade name “22 companies located in the Hamdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu.” However, around December 2010, the entertainment drinking-si-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong

③ 심은 위 유흥주점을 운영할 당시 그 직원인 이QQ의 폭행사건에 대하여 원고에게 수사를 의뢰했던 적이 있는데 , 당시 이이 ' 명동식구파 ' 라는 범죄단체의 조직원이라는 진술이 확보되어 그 수사권한이 경기지방경찰청 광역수사대 폭력팀으로 넘어가자 원고에게 ' 사건을 무마해 달라 ' 는 부탁을 했다가 거절당한 적도 있다 .

④ On January 8, 2009, the Defendant did not take a serious disciplinary measure against entertainment establishments, such as accepting money and valuables, leakage of control information, etc., and the Defendant’s hearing, including the chief of a police station, etc. under his/her control, under the “special direction to establish a public service discipline, to concurrently file a complaint on duties.”

It was widely awarded to the auditor in charge.

(2) Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency stipulates that "any person related to the duties of public officials" refers to any person or organization falling under any of the following items, who is related to the duties of public officials, and refers to any person or organization that is subject to investigation, audit, supervision, inspection, control, administrative guidance, etc.

According to the facts found above, the plaintiff was at the time when he worked as the head of the sexual violence3 team in the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency or the metropolitan investigative agency. The plaintiff was at the time when he operated the entertainment center in the Go-dong, Ansan-si, which belongs to the plaintiff's business jurisdiction and lent the representative's name to the marina-dong. The sexual violence crime that the plaintiff had been in charge of investigation as the plaintiff's business's non-business jurisdiction is a crime of sexual assault under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes (Article 242 of the Criminal Act) (b) and the crime of kidnapping, kidnapping, selling and buying, etc. (Article 288 of the Criminal Act), which directly operated or is related to the operation thereof, is likely to cause or are vulnerable to the occurrence of the above crime, and can be subject to control or administrative guidance in relation to the investigation of the crime. Thus, it is reasonable to see that the court below D) is a public official related to the duty under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (c) of the Code of Conduct.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that he is not a "person related to his duties" is without merit.

B) As to the assertion that there was no awareness of the receipt of money or valuables from ○○ (as to the grounds for disposition No. 11)

(1) (1) The following facts are recognized if each description of Nos. 3, 6, and 7 to 33 of Eul and the testimony of the witness Cho ○○ is added.

① On February 14, 2008, as a new interest and violence organization organized around 2005 and engaged in entertainment in Ansan-si area and intervention in various interest coupons, Ma○○-gu, which used 20 full-time members of the age club located in Ansan-dong, and used 30 full-time members of the group of persons engaged in the gym clubs for each item, etc.

② The Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency’s regional police agency’s two teams of violence against the metropolitan investigation group (the head of the team is the same as the police officer’s leader) shall verify the fact of damage caused by search and seizure of entertainment establishments, tracking accounts, communications investigation, etc. over a year after obtaining intelligence against the above organized violence crime, and shall arrest 96 persons, including the head of the behavior team, from May 17, 201 to August 14, 201, with a warrant of arrest issued to the principal offender to track his/her location.

In the process, on June 2, 2010, the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency’s metropolitan investigation team was charged with violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. On October 11, 2010, literature ○○ voluntarily attended the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency and was investigated, and then the head of the Si/Gun/Gu office in the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition that he was suspected of having been suspected of having committed a crime against Ga○○. The two teams of the above violence were to proceed in full-scale as of March 22, 201, and were issued a warrant of arrest against Ga○○ on March 22, 201 as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (organization and activities of organizations, etc.). After that, the literature ○ was arrested on June 4, 2011.

③ At the same time as above, the Plaintiff was working as the head of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency sexual assault3 team in the metropolitan metropolitan police agency at the time when the investigation into the Mapo-spath was being conducted, introduced ○○ at the place where the Plaintiff carried out food service, and introduced 1-(1) as the head of the Mapo-gu sexual police agency’s head of the Dongpo-gu sexual police agency, and 1- (2) as the head of the Dongpo-gu sexual police agency’s head of the Dongpo-gu sexual police agency’s head of the Dongpo-gu sexual police agency’s head of the Dongpo-gu sexual police agency’s head of the Dongpo-gu sexual police agency’s head of the Dongpo-gu sexual police agency’s head of the Gu. On December 23, 2010, the Plaintiff Dopo-gu sexual police officer’s head of the Dongpo-gu sexual police agency’s head of the Dongpo-gu sexual police agency’s head of the Gu.

④ 원고는 2010 . 5 . 경부터 경기지방경찰청 광역수사대 폭력2팀에서 목포식구파를 수사한다는 사실을 알고 있었고 , 2011 . 2 . 10 . 에는 위 폭력2팀 경장 박①① ) 에게서 목포 식구파의 문○○를 수사한다는 사실을 확인하고는 그 날 저녁에 만난 문○○에게 ' 얘 기를 잘 해 놨으니 걱정하지 말라 ' 는 말을 하였다 .

⑤ When it is necessary to contact the Plaintiff or when it is said that the Plaintiff is required, door ○ does not directly confirm whether such money, etc. was given to the Plaintiff. However, there was no direct verification as to whether the said money, etc. was given to the Plaintiff.) also did not say that the said money, etc. was the ○○○○.

(2) According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff had been aware of the fact that door ○ was already an object of investigation as a member of the so-called spathm wave around December 2010. However, the above facts of recognition alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the person who actually offered entertainment, such as the reasons for disposition, was ○○, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the existence of 1-1 is not recognized in that the Plaintiff was offered entertainment from ○○○.

C) As to the assertion that there was no fact that he was sexual intercourse (No. 1 - 1 related to the grounds for disposition)

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 10 and 27 and the testimony of the witness ○○○, it is not recognized that the literature ○○ received 400,000 won of entertainment entertainment expenses equivalent to 200,000 won of entertainment expenses from the Plaintiff and the appellate court on December 17, 2010, although it is recognized that the Plaintiff was paid 40,000 won for the entertainment expenses of the Plaintiff and the appellate court. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff received an actual sexual intercourse with the Plaintiff on the sole basis of it. There is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the part that received entertainment expenses equivalent to 200,000 won of entertainment expenses among the grounds for disposition is not recognized.

D) With respect to the nature of 500,000 won received from the court (as regards the grounds for disposition 1 - 3) and delivered to the whole country.

( ①① ) 제3 , 6호증 , 을 제19 , 21 , 24호증의 각 기재에 의하면 , 원고와 심 이 2010 . 6 . 30 . 경 심 ) 이 운영하던 ' 22사체 ' 유흥주점에서 술을 마시고 , 그 자리에 전区신을 불러 옆 건물 지하의 ' 딸기 ' 유흥주점으로 가 셋이서 함께 술을 마신 사실 , 원고와 심 D ) 이 만취하여 당시 ' 딸기 ' 유흥주점에서 나온 술값 94만원을 전XX이 신용카드로 결제한 사실 , 이후 며칠이 지나 원고가 전因신에게 술값 94만원을 건넸으나 전XX이 반씩 나누자며 50만원만 받고 나머지 44만원은 돌려준 사실 , 이후 원고는 2010 . 12 . 23 . 위 유흥주점에서 가진 성폭력3팀 송년모임에서 합석한 심 ) ) 에게 ' 예전에 술값 194만원을 전勾勾이 결제하였으니 이를 챙겨주라 ' 고 하였고 , 이에 심 은 원고를 통해 전XX에게 50만원을 전달한 사실 , 전区区은 그 자리에서 일단 위 50만원을 받았으나 헤어진 지 약 5분 정도 후 심 ) 이 전화하여 ' 원고에게 봉투를 받았냐 . 50만원밖에 안 되는데 용돈으로 써라 . ' 고 하므로 다음 날 이를 바로 원고에게 돌려준 사실이 인정된

Article 14(1) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency provides that "no money, real estate, gift, or entertainment (hereinafter referred to as "money, goods, etc.") shall be received from a person related to his/her duties", while subparagraph 1 of the same Article provides exceptions to cases of money, goods, etc. provided by legitimate title, such as performance of obligations.

In light of the above facts, 500,000 won received and delivered through the plaintiff to JeonX, it may be viewed that the money delivered through the plaintiff to JeonX is divided in proportion to the persons who attended the previous place of the payment. However, even if so, the plaintiff demanded money in the purport that the amount exceeds the proportion divided to the plaintiff's duty-related person (the depth), thereby preserving the amount in excess of the proportion divided to the plaintiff's duty-related person) and then preserving it, the purport of the delivery is distorted, and it is presumed that the above 50,000 won delivered to the telecommunication is purely a money and valuables falling under Article 14 (1) 1 of the Code of Conduct of the Police Officers.

Therefore, 1-3 Grounds for Disposition are recognized.

E) With respect to the nature of two weeks received from the person in question (with respect to the grounds for disposition No. 3)

① In full view of ① Evidence Nos. 3 and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 10 through 18, 21, and 27 through 33’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff may seek governance from two owners because he/she is a person to be engaged in his/her service at the end of the year. The plaintiff's request for 20,000 illness. The plaintiff's request was made to ○○ for 4 diseases. The plaintiff's request was made to 20,000 and 200 won was delivered to ○○○. The plaintiff's request was made to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 10,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000.

According to these facts of recognition, it seems that the plaintiff did not have had the intention to receive two classes of the above two weeks from the beginning. However, it is not a reply that the plaintiff's request was made to demand that the two classes of the high-priced shares be sealed by a person related to his duties, not a reply that the public official's dignity is maintained.

Therefore, the Defendant’s ground for the third disposition, even if it does not constitute a violation of Article 14(Restrictions on Receiving Money and Valuables) and Article 16(Prohibition on Borrowing Money, etc.) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency or of the National Police Agency, Article 63(Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

t) It can be deemed that the misconduct of the violation constitutes the misconduct.

F) As to the character of one million won delivered to ○○○ (related to the ground for the fourth disposition)

원고는 2011 . 2 . 10 . 문○○가 목포식구파의 일원으로서 경기지방경찰청 광역수사 대 폭력2팀의 수사대상임을 확실히 인지하게 되었고 , 당일 저녁식사를 하는 자리에서 문○○에게 ' 얘기를 잘 해 놨으니 걱정하지 말라 ' 고 하며 100만원을 교부하였음은 앞서 본 바와 같다 .

The Plaintiff asserts that the source of the drinking value known as having been paid in full was a literature ○○, and that the said one million won was delivered to the effect that the Plaintiff paid the drinking value. However, the Plaintiff’s above behavior cannot be deemed to be an appropriate one that should be taken as a public official when he knows that the source of the drinking value known as having been paid in full was a literature ○○. However, the Plaintiff’s offer of such entertainment by literature ○ was not reported to the head, etc. of the relevant flag officer pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency, without reporting to the head, etc. of the relevant flag officer, etc. pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of misconduct publicly alleged as the ground for the disposition No. 4 violates Article 63 (Non-Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

G) Whether the neglect of duties is recognized as a misconduct (related to the grounds of disposition No. 5)

On February 10, 201, the Plaintiff is a member of the Mapo-gu Police Agency, which was clearly aware that he/she was subject to investigation by the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency, a metropolitan investigation team, and the Plaintiff was already aware that the two teams of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency had already conducted large-scale internal investigation into the Mapo-gu Mapo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Spo-Sa.

Even if the Plaintiff, after February 10, 2011, transferred from the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency to the police station on March 22, 201, received the allegation that he/she had been unaware of the fact that a warrant of arrest was issued to the door ○ on March 22, 2011, the Plaintiff neglected to perform his/her duties as a police official, even if he/she did not notify to anyone who is in charge of the investigation affairs regarding the door ○○○, and received contact using another person’s mobile phone without informing him/her of the fact that he/she had been in charge of the investigation affairs regarding the door ○○○, and did not cause gross negligence, even if he/she did not cause intention to escape from the door ○○○○, or caused gross negligence.

Therefore, the grounds for the fifth measure are recognized.

H) Sub-decisions

If so, 1- (1) that the Plaintiff was offered entertainment from ○○○ among the grounds for disposition, and in depth)

Although it is not recognized that entertainment expenses were offered in an amount equivalent to 200,000 won, the remaining grounds for the disposition of this case are all recognized. However, the grounds for the disposition of this case stated by the defendant as an unlawful act of violating the duty of integrity does not constitute a violation of the duty of integrity, but constitutes a violation of the duty of integrity.

2) As to the assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

When a disciplinary action is imposed on a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, the disciplinary action shall be placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, and the disciplinary action may be deemed unlawful only when it is deemed that the person having authority to take the disciplinary action has abused the discretionary power that has been placed to the person having authority to take the disciplinary action because it has considerably lost validity under social norms. In order to deem that a disciplinary action against a public official has considerably lost validity under social norms, the disciplinary action should be determined in a case where it can be objectively and objectively deemed that the content of the disciplinary action is objectively unreasonable in light of various factors, such as the content and nature of the misconduct causing the disciplinary action, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary action, criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu14637, Nov. 25, 1997)

(5) The Plaintiff was provided with excessive entertainment for several occasions, compared to the nature of his/her duties, as a state public official who conducts an investigation into a crime, securing public peace, etc., by taking into account the following circumstances, which may have been known by the overall purport of oral argument regarding the instant case (i) the Plaintiff’s act of using 00,000 won to the ○○○ Police Agency’s office, which is a public official’s duty-related officer’s duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related public official-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related duty-related officer

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Yang Sung-tae

Judges Yellow Jae-ho

Judges Kim Jae-Gyeong