206Nu1465 Revocation of disposition of revocation of dismissal

○ ○

Siri-si, Siri-dong

Attorney Seo-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

vice-markets

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Incheon District Court Decision 2005Gudan1302 Decided December 19, 2005

October 18, 2006

November 15, 2006

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's removal disposition against the plaintiff on January 10, 2005 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 27, 1995, the Plaintiff was appointed as a local tax secretary, a local tax secretary, and was in the office of Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si.

Since the promotion to the local tax office on October 21, 1998, the imposition of the non-permanent viewing planning bureau, etc.

They have worked in the Republic of Korea.

B. The defendant, following a resolution by the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee, shall be a local public official of the following acts:

Articles 48 (Duty of Fidelity), 49 (Duty of Compliance), and 50 (Work of Desertion) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act")

section 69(1) of the Act as a violation of section 58 (Prohibition of Collective Action)

On January 10, 2005, the plaintiff was removed from office on January 10, 2005 (hereinafter the disposition in this case).

The plaintiff is working as the secretary general of the regional headquarters of the sports community headquarters of the Korea Public Officials' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Public Officials' Union").

Notwithstanding the policy of prohibiting the general strike (Direction), the approval authority in relation to the general strike, etc. on November 15, 2004

Unauthorized absence without permission from the head of the relevant department (head of the tax division) (from November 5, 2004, to the 8th day of the same month to the 12th day of the same month, the same month;

15. The major held at the Hanyang University located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 15, 2004 was illegally collected.

During the participation in the Council, 10:30 Gyeongyang University, the police was led to November 16, 2004: 30 Gyeongyang University.

He was released, and on November 18, 2004, 13: He was absent from work without permission after he was at work for about 15 days.

C. The plaintiff filed an appeal review with the Gyeonggi-do Local Appeals Review Committee, but on April 4, 2005.

25. The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The absence of grounds for disciplinary action

The plaintiff was absent from work without permission for the strike of this case, and the plaintiff was absent from work without permission for the household.

Recognizing this point, even if it is evaluated as participating in the total strike of the major union, the law

In light of the unconstitutionality of Paragraph 1 of Article 58, it is necessary to reduce or interpret the elements of the above Paragraph.

Considering that there was a violation of the duty of prohibition of collective action under the above provision.

Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Public Officials' Unions led by the Government;

(hereinafter referred to as the "Bills of this case") is actually subject to the procedure of collecting opinions of public officials.

The work rights of public officials shall be prepared and the contents thereof shall also be punished by the labor union of public officials, and three labor rights of public officials shall be imposed.

in that it is a law to legally limit the company, the company shall adopt a resolution on the general strike and the plaintiff shall

The plaintiff's participation is a legitimate act that does not go against the social norms and constitutes a legitimate act.

There is no disciplinary reason.

(2) Defect in the disciplinary procedure

According to Article 2 (6) of the Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Regulations, a disciplinary officer who requests a disciplinary resolution;

The competent commission shall, after making a full examination of the

Nevertheless, the defendant must submit it to the court. Nevertheless, the plaintiff on November 15, 2004.

Disciplinary action, such as preparing a written answer against the plaintiff and giving sufficient opportunity to make a statement, upon absence without permission;

without going through a specific process of verifying the facts of the reasons, “no person in charge”

on the sole basis of the “certificate of absence” requires a resolution of the Plaintiff in lieu of the confirmation of the fact; and

The disposition of this case is subject to the disposition of this case, and the disposition of this case disregarding the legitimate procedure required by the above provision

illegal.

(3) Illegal disciplinary action criteria

The defendant shall take disciplinary measures against the major labor union of the Minister of the Interior and the Gyeonggi-do Governor.

“The Action in this case in accordance with additional guidelines for the measure of the disciplinary suspect in relation to the General Labor Relations Act.

In part, the above work process guidelines and additional guidelines were made for the following reasons: The illegality of the above work process guidelines and additional guidelines

(1) The instant disposition based on such unlawful guidelines, etc. is unlawful.

① The above work process guidelines, etc. shall be regarded as a participant in the strike on November 15, 2004; and

The Act prohibits and does not allow medical personnel from running in the General Labor Relations Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Labor Relations Act”). The Act provides that medical personnel shall not engage in the General Labor Relations Act.

There is not only deemed a provision that excludes factual investigation into the grounds for disciplinary action, but also a public official's right to annual interest.

business guidelines containing the contents of the restriction are illegal.

(2) In accordance with Article 4 (1) (Discretionary Mitigation) and (2) (Discretionary Mitigation) of the Rules on the Determination of Disciplinary Action against Local Public Officials

person who has received an official commendation or has been required to make a resolution for disciplinary action;

shall be deemed to have been caused by negligence in the course of faithfully and actively performing the duties.

The disciplinary action may be mitigated in the event of certain reasons, such as rain, etc., and the above guidelines for handling the above duties, etc.

In order to exclude the application of the same disciplinary mitigation provision, it is illegal.

(4) Deviation and abuse of discretionary power

For public officials under his/her jurisdiction, such as Suwon-si, he/she shall be absent without permission for more than 1 and 2 months;

Public officials belonging to other local major workers, such as being subject to the disposition of liability, shall be subject to a minor case similar to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has been subject to the disposition of guidance, the plaintiff has served in good faith, and the plaintiff has served in November 5, 2004.

It shall be ordered by the Nowon-gu Office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but the affairs shall be taken over by the division for the imposition of additional viewing who is the previous workplace.

Before November 15, 2004, the plaintiff did not work at the office of the United States of America for adjustment of duties, such as transfer, and the plaintiff did not work before November 15, 2004

The plaintiff and the plaintiff due to the disposition of this case, not actively involved in the business of labor union.

Considering the fact that the family's livelihood is difficult, the disposition of this case is not against the plaintiff's misconduct.

Since it is too harsh, it is illegal to deviate from or abuse discretion.

(b) Relevant statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

(c) Facts of recognition;

(1) On August 25, 2004, the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs showed the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining against the public official trade union.

for example, the labor union and the labor union of the public official who has the aggregate of unguaranteed contents; and

The bill on the operation was pre-announcement of legislation, and the major worker's union was disexploited against it and 10.11.9.10

(1) A vote for and against industrial action by each branch office shall be held, and a decision shall be made to enter the general strike from the 15th of the same month.

was determined.

(2) The Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs may take measures for the total strike of major labor unions on November 4, 2004. Non-major labor union

After publishing a discourse that strong response is made to the legal general strike, on November 2004.

6. "Guidelines for disciplinary action against major labor-management" and November 15, 2004; a person absent from office without permission shall be a person participating in the strike;

the disciplinary action against a major labor union member who is deemed to be immediately subject to the disciplinary action, such as “Additional Guidelines for Disciplinary Action”

B instructed to the head of each Si/Do local government.

(3) Guidelines for disciplinary action in relation to the General Labor Relations Act shall be balanced between local governments and national law.

disciplinary action against a public official related to the General Labor Relations in order to maintain his/her competence;

The criteria, procedures for dealing with disciplinary affairs, etc. are prescribed, and ① The participation in the general strike when a disciplinary resolution is requested;

With respect to core operators, a disciplinary action such as dismissal shall include all participants, annual leave, outing, etc.

to require each severe disciplinary measure against the person with authority to approve the company, such as the company that permitted the participation, and 2

in light of the fact that the act in relation to the law is a collective act that causes harm to the national security;

(D) Based on Article 4(1)(D) and (2)(D) of the Regulations on the Punishment, etc. of Public Officials;

(3) Si/Gun/Gu public officials in the jurisdiction of disciplinary action;

In principle, the City/Do Disciplinary Committee shall be subject to jurisdiction, and 4 each local person.

The head of the administrative body shall establish a detailed plan necessary for the disciplinary action against persons related to the strike, etc.

It is the content of preliminary preparation, documentary evidence activities, and disciplinary execution.

(4) The defendant is a public official under his jurisdiction, and ① the above-mentioned major labor union around November 8, 2004

On November 12, 2004, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs has notified the guidelines for disciplinary action against the general strike.

Audit rooms pursuant to subparagraphs 2747 (No. 12, 2004) and 2747 (No. 12, 2004) - 5026 ( Nov. 8, 2004)

- Persons absent from office on November 15, 2004 without permission under 5105 ( November 12, 2004) with respect to the general strike of major workers.

corporation shall be deemed to be a participant in the strike and shall immediately take disciplinary action, and the reasons for which are not clear shall be the calendar;

A discipline accused person related to the General Labor Relations Act with respect to non-permission for any duty, such as ex officio.

The plaintiff instructed 'Additional Guidelines' and instructed 'Non-Participation in Major Labor Relations' and 'Non-Participation in Major Labor Relations'.

A public official belonging to the defendant, including the Dong, is absent from office for 15 days without permission, group workers (C) and public official who takes a business trip.

It was aware of the policy that ‘the heavy disciplinary action will be regarded as a strike participant'.

(5) Nevertheless, the Plaintiff is absent without permission from the head of the department with the authority to approve (head of the tax division).

( November 5, 2004, from the 8th of the same month to the 12th of the same month, from the same month, the 15th of the same month to the 7th of the same month), and the 204th of the same month.

11. 15. Participation in a specialized labor-management illegal assembly held at the Hanyang University located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

On the same day: 10: At the later end of the Hanyang University, the police was served on November 16, 2004: 30 square meters.

On November 18, 2004, 13: At around 15, 2004, he was released from work without permission.

(6) Accordingly, on November 17, 2004, the defendant requests the Personnel Committee of Gyeonggi-do to make a resolution on disciplinary action against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sent a copy of the request for a disciplinary decision to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee

On December 1, 2004, the statement of the Plaintiff is heard while the Plaintiff attends and the request for disciplinary decision is submitted by the Defendant.

In full view of the evidence attached to the plaintiff, the resolution of dismissal was made.

(7) The plaintiff shall reduce disciplinary action against local public officials in Gyeonggi-do during his/her service period.

No fact that he/she has received any order or medal determined by the reason for such order or medal shall be made.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 4-7, Gap evidence 17, Eul evidence 17, Eul

No. 2-1 through 6, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 6-1 through 4, and Eul evidence 7

No. 9-1, No. 2, Eul evidence No. 11-4, and Eul evidence No. 12-1 through 5, respectively.

re-, the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

(1) Whether grounds for disciplinary action exist

(A) Whether the Local Public Officials Act violates Articles 48 through 50

According to Article 7 (4) of the Local Public Officials Service Regulations, it is not possible to permit annual leave for official duties.

The public official applied for annual leave within the scope of the statutory number of days of leave.

of the head of the administrative agency with the permission of the head of the agency to which he or she belongs to leave his workplace;

The above shall be subject to disciplinary action against a violation of Article 50 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act, except in extenuating circumstances.

The reason should be (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2521 delivered on June 14, 1996, etc.).

However, according to the above facts, the plaintiff goes to work as an organization according to the practice of the total strike of major labor union.

subsection (1) of this section in such manner as to be likely to cause a serious administrative vacancy;

Taking active or passive part in the total strike without complying with official orders, such as attendance instructions;

Unauthorized absence from office by doctor. The plaintiff's act is a region where the duty of good faith of public officials is defined.

Article 49 of the Public Officials Act, Article 50(1) of the Civil Officials Act, which provides for the prohibition of escape from work

is in violation of section 1.

(B) Whether Article 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act is violated

1) The plaintiff goes to work for the previous department and takes over the duty to his successor and remains.

The purport of taking part in the total strike of major workers is merely absence without permission due to treatment, etc.

The plaintiff asserts that it is not absent from office, but the Secretary General of the Special Labor-Management Regional Headquarters

under the lead of a series of measures taken by the major labor union to prevent the legislation of the above Bill.

The fact that the implementation has been made and the total strike of major labor union has been illegal and the public officials participating in it;

and the participation of the head of the affiliated department in the overall strike of the defendant who expressed that the disciplinary action shall be taken more than one time;

Unauthorized absence from office against the individual perception of his or her volunteer, etc. is reduced, and as argued by the plaintiff in his or her household affairs

Even if absence from office due to the same reason, the permission of the head of the department at the time of absence from office;

It does not seem that the absence without permission is an urgent and essential situation. etc.

In full view of B, the Plaintiff’s absence without permission is an industrial action in the total strike of major workers.

It is sufficient to regard the Plaintiff as exchange, and the Plaintiff’s unauthorized absence made in such form is simple.

Unlike absence from absence without permission, a local public official constitutes a collective act prohibited by Article 58 (1) of the Act.

The grounds for disciplinary action under Article 69 (1) of the Act shall be applicable.

2) A public official engaged in “actual labor” within the scope of a public official whose three labor rights are guaranteed.

section 58(1) of the Local Public Officials Act, which is limited to the section 58(1), shall be a public official who may enjoy three labor rights

In determining the scope of the duties of the public official, the determination of public nature according to the nature of the duties

Persons who are engaged in de facto labor in consideration of the Do and the actual state, social circumstances, etc.

The scope of the law seems to be determined based on the person who did not so, and the provision of the law in question is admitted.

To determine the scope of public officials who are entitled to enjoy the right of collective action;

Article 33(2) of the Constitution goes beyond the scope of constructive discretion granted to the legislative authority.

It is not a violation of the Constitution and therefore, (the Constitutional Court of Korea on October 27, 2005).

High Court Order 2004HunBa96, Reference to Order, etc.)

However, collective action for any activity other than official duties prescribed in Article 58 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act;

meaning any collective action by a public official for any activity not belonging to the public service;

Paragraph 1 of Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, publication, assembly and association, not to do so;

And The purpose of legislation of the Local Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith under the Local Public Officials Act, the duty of care, etc. comprehensively

by taking into account the effect of neglecting the duty of care for a purpose contrary to the public interest.

It should be interpreted that "collective act" should be reduced (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4 delivered on October 15, 2004).

5035, April 15, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2960, Apr. 15, 2005).

3) Therefore, it is to point out the problems about the legislative bill of this case by a major worker.

Do The duties of a public official shall be performed concurrently by a public official of the Republic of Korea if he/she has been engaged in a simultaneous and multiple strike business.

Acts of many persons that undermine the nature of public duties, such as undermining the discipline or violating this section.

such failure may cause serious administrative gap and inconvenience to the people.

and, as a behavior that may cause the people's incompetence to public officials, the general strike of major labor unions.

An act of absence from office of a public official belonging to a major worker according to a resolution to achieve his/her intent.

section 58 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act prohibits a section 58 (1) of the Local Public Officials Act from being ‘collective activity for purposes other than official activities'

(2).

4) Permission or restriction to any extent and to which extent the right to collective bargaining and collective action of a public official is granted.

In order to participate in the process of enactment of the law, the petition rights or other laws under the Constitution shall be

Article 32(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Local Public Officials Act, even though they had expressed their intent by way of action

Major Labor Unions using illegal means contrary to Article 58(1) and the Plaintiff’s participation in the labor union

It is not a legitimate act that does not go against social norms.

(2) Whether there is a defect in the disciplinary procedure or not

(A) As to the failure to conduct a sufficient survey

According to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant derived from the plaintiff in relation to the ground for the disciplinary action in this case.

Having undergone sufficient fact-finding investigations by checking the attendance status of public officials in one jurisdiction;

Inasmuch as facts requiring a disciplinary resolution can be recognized, the plaintiff may separately request the disciplinary action against the plaintiff.

Even if the defendant did not prepare a written answer, such circumstance alone alone requires the defendant to make a resolution.

No defect may be found in the vehicle.

(B) As to the guarantee of right to state

As seen earlier, the Gyeonggi-do Personnel Committee for Disciplinary Action by the defendant prior to the disciplinary decision

In light of the fact that the plaintiff was given an opportunity to vindicate in the open disciplinary procedure to a certain extent.

In this regard, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have deprived of the opportunity to make a statement at the time.

(C) Therefore, the instant disciplinary action cannot be deemed unlawful due to its defect in the procedure.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(3) Whether the disciplinary criteria are unlawful or not

(A) As seen in the above facts of recognition, the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs shall appoint a major employee to the defendant, etc.

When any illegal misconduct is discovered in connection with a request for a resolution on disciplinary action against business persons, a written confirmation, etc. immediately;

section 14(b)(3)(3)(3)(2)(3)(2)(3)(3)(2)(3)(

No. 4 of the Rules on Disciplinary Action on Local Public Officials for them, presenting certain standards.

section 1(1)(Discretionary) and paragraph 2(2)(D) of this section excludes discretion based on mitigation.

of the disciplinary action in question, however, that it is against the General Labor Relations Commission

as a measure, the illegality of the public officials by making out a post-management plan for the participants in the strike;

The purpose of preventing participation in the general strike and disciplinary action against the participation of the public officials in the general strike;

The main purpose of each local government is to maintain equity, and the foregoing section is to;

The disciplinary officer, even if the guidance provides that the discretion to reduce is excluded, shall be subject to the disciplinary action.

Improper exercise of discretionary power in consideration of illegality, etc. of an act related to inducement and total strike;

The fact that it appears to prevent mitigation is sufficient for the reasons for disciplinary action, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

A strike participation on the basis of only the "certificate of absence from office (persons participating in the strike)" prepared by the head of the department in charge without an investigation;

Even if the facts were found, as seen above, the plaintiff is part of the general strike.

Taking into account the absence from office and absence from office without permission, etc., the place of the above disciplinary action

It is illegal or local government official duties, which are higher statutes, as it violates the defendant's disciplinary rights.

It cannot be viewed as a guideline that violates the original law, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(4) The point of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

(A) If a disciplinary action is taken against a person who is a public official due to a cause for the disciplinary action

Whether or not to take an action shall be placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take an action, except that the person having authority to take an action shall exercise discretion.

(1) If the disciplinary action has considerably lost the validity of the disciplinary action, the person who has the authority to take the action shall have discretion to take the action.

disciplinary action shall be deemed to be unlawful only if it is recognized that it has been committed, and the disciplinary action

Whether a division has considerably lost validity under social norms or not shall perform its duties according to specific cases.

the nature and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, the content and nature of the misconduct, and the administrative title to be achieved by the disciplinary action.

It should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various factors, such as the criteria for a disciplinary decision (Supreme Court Decision 9 September 2002).

24. See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6620 Decided 24. 202

(B) In the instant case, ① the basic purport of the Constitution and the Local Public Officials Act, and the purpose pursued by the Plaintiff

The reason or motive alone is insufficient to justify the plaintiff's action, and ② the public official's strike

In the case of a profit report in which a number of people can become victims and a major worker can obtain due to the strike.

(3) The public official performing the duty of law enforcement disregards the law.

the realization of the rule of law by encouraging public assistance against legitimate enforcement of law.

(4) The Plaintiff’s position in the major union as well as the instant case

Details and degree of grounds for the disciplinary action, 5 The plaintiff leading the illegal assembly

Taking into account the participation and absence without permission, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff shall be taken into account.

Even if the disposition of this case is so harsh that it is considerably unreasonable by social norms.

It can be seen that it violates the principle of proportionality and the principle of equality, and is a deviation and abuse of discretionary power.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is with this conclusion.

Since it is improper to accept the defendant's appeal and revoke the judgment of the first instance court and the plaintiff's claim.

1. The judgment is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-ho

Judges Ahn Ho-ho

Judges Lee Dong-ho

Relevant statutes

Local Public Officials Act

Article 48 (Duty of Good Faith) All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes, and perform their duties faithfully.

Article 49 (Duty to Comply with) Any public official shall obey any order of his superior officer with respect to the performance of his duties.

Provided, That a statement of opinion may be made.

Article 50 (Prohibition of Deserting Office)

(1) No public official shall desert from his office without the permission of his superior official or any justifiable reason.

Article 58 (Prohibition of Collective Action)

(1) No public official shall do any collective action for any labor campaign, or activities other than public services: Provided, That those who are actually engaged in labor.

This provision shall not apply to a public official engaged in service.

(2) The scope of public officials actually engaged in labor as referred to in the proviso of paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Municipal Ordinance.

(3) A public official who is actually engaged in labor under the proviso to paragraph (1) and is admitted to a trade union shall transfer to the union.

If it is intended, the permission of the head of the local government to which he belongs shall be obtained.

(4) Any condition may be attached to the permission referred to in paragraph (3) as deemed necessary.

Article 69 (Grounds for Disciplinary Action)

(1) When a public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, a resolution on disciplinary action shall be requested and the result of such resolution on disciplinary action shall be based on:

be subject to a disciplinary action.

1. When he violates this Act, orders thereunder, or Municipal Ordinances or Municipal Rules of local governments; and

2. Duties in breach of any duty (including such duties as imposed on the status of public officials in other Acts and subordinate statutes) or duties;

When he/she neglects to do so;

3. When he commits an act detrimental to his dignity as a public official.

Article 70 (Types of Disciplinary Action) Disciplinary action shall be classified into removal, dismissal, suspension from office, reduction in salary, and reprimand.

Local Public Officials Discipline and Appeal Provisions

Article 2 (Requests for Resolution on Disciplinary Action)

(6) In case of a request for disciplinary action under paragraphs (1) and (3), the disciplinary action shall be proved after full investigation of the grounds for disciplinary action.

shall submit to the competent disciplinary committee, together with the following related materials:

1. A written request for a public official’s disciplinary decision in attached Form 1;

2. Copies of the private records cards which are public officials.

3. A written confirmation in attached Form 1-2;

4. Relevant evidential materials, such as official documents, which can prove the details of suspicion.

5. Records of investigation or records of investigation of the facts of suspicion;

6. Measures taken against relevant persons and evidential materials therefor;

7. The abstract of relevant laws, regulations, instructions, phrases, etc.;

Gyeonggi-do Rules on the Disciplinary Action against Local Public Officials (Ordinance No. 2761 of April 27, 1998)

Article 4 (Reduction of Disciplinary Action)

(1) Where a person for whom a resolution on disciplinary action is requested has rendered meritorious service falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the Personnel Committee shall impose disciplinary action listed in attached

The disciplinary action may be mitigated according to the standards for discretionary mitigation; Provided, That the public official concerned shall be subject to disciplinary action or warning pursuant to these rules.

When there is a fact that he has received the disciplinary action or warning disposition, the merits of the disciplinary action or warning disposition shall be excluded from those subject to mitigation;

With respect to misconducts and costs subject to intensive purification for which the prescription of disciplinary reasons under Article 73-2 (1) of the Unified District Act is 3 years;

(2) No disciplinary action shall be mitigated.

1. A meritorious service awarded any decoration or medal under the Awards and Decorations Act;

2. Official commendation given by the Prime Minister or more in accordance with the Government Commendation Rules (proviso omitted);

Public officials selected as exemplary public officials pursuant to the exemplary public officials regulations;

4. Public services rendered to him/her on official duty;

(2) The Personnel Committee shall caused the misconduct of persons whose resolution on disciplinary action is required due to negligence in the course of bona fide and active work.

If it is deemed that the disciplinary action has occurred, the disciplinary action shall be mitigated according to the criteria for mitigation of disciplinary action in attached Table 3 in consideration of the

(2).