1. The Defendant’s disciplinary action for one month of suspension from office against the Plaintiff on August 26, 2014 shall be revoked.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on August 7, 1982, and was promoted to the Republic of Korea on December 31, 2005, and thereafter served as the captain of the Gyeongbuk-do Police Agency, Cheongdo Police Agency, and Police Station B police station from July 12, 2013 to July 28, 2014.

On April 18, 2014, in order to purchase land owned by another person by a person located in Busan City for the purpose of installing urban gas in a usual access route. - In order to find out the address of the landowner, the personal information was inquired about five times for private purposes, including using a computer terminal inside a police box from April 4, 2014 to April 11, 2014, and conducting a four-time and four-time license inquiry meetings; and - around April 18, 2014, the road and neighboring site was transferred to the person’s own name, and the seller’s address discovered by a resident inquiry, etc. was used to inquire about the personal information for private purposes, such as entering the seller’s address in the sales contract.

B. On August 26, 2014, the Defendant took one-month disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff committed the following misconduct (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) and violated Articles 56, 57, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act (Duty of Good Faith).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal review. However, the Ministry of Personnel Management dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on February 1, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 5 evidence, Eul 10 to 12, and 24 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not submit to the Disciplinary Committee any meritorious service subject to the Plaintiff’s decoration mitigation, and the Plaintiff’s serious procedural error did not undergo deliberation on disciplinary mitigation. (2) The part of the instant misconduct, which identified D’s personal information.