2014Guhap22589 Revocation of revocation of dismissal

A person shall be appointed.

The Commissioner of Busan Local Police Agency

April 9, 2015

May 7, 2015

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 April 21, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Dismissal disposition against the plaintiff and appeal against the plaintiff

1) On July 30, 1984, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police official on July 30, 1984, and was promoted to the reduction on July 11, 2012.

From February 10, 2014, the Busan National Police Station B has been working with the Busan National Police Station B.

2) On April 11, 2014, the General Disciplinary Committee for Police Officers of Busan Regional Police Agency is the following disciplinary actions against the Plaintiff:

(hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Reason of this case") Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and 61 (Secretariat) of the State Public Officials Act

Article 78 (1) of the Act on the ground that each violation of Articles 63 and 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) is committed.

Pursuant to subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3, the defendant passed a resolution to dismiss the plaintiff, and accordingly, the defendant is on April 21, 2014.

The dismissal disposition against the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") was made.

[1] The plaintiff was exposed to the "2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. from 0 to 2013. 1. 1. 20, 2012 to 3. 2. 1, 2012 to 3. 2. 1, 200, after the Kim Jong-nam Police Agency Kim Jong-nam Police Agency's 3. 1. 2. 2. 2. 1. 3, the plaintiff was informed of the fact that the D representative was exposed to drinking, and found to be near the G bus stops located in the F. 3. 1. 3, and the plaintiff was informed of the fact that "the 1. 2. 3 . 3 . 3 . 4 . 1 . 3 . 1 : from the Busan Fri-gu Police Agency's duty of traffic safety team leader," and the plaintiff was removed from his office's office to 1 3 . 2 . 3 . 2 3 . 2 2 2 m. m. m. Ha to check to check off.

On February 15, 2013: K 10,000 won was demanded to inspect 20 days, and 10,000 won was 10,000 won, and K 20,000 won was 20,000 won, and 10,000 won was 1:0,000 won was 1:0,000,000 won was 2:0,000,000,000 won was 1:0,000,000,000,000 won was 1:0,000,000,000,000 won was 2:0,000,000,000,000 won was 1:0,000,000,000,000 won was 1:0,000,000,000 won was 2).

3) The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the instant disposition on May 9, 2014, and is dissatisfied with the appeals review committee for the Ministry of Security and Public Administration.

An appeal review request seeking cancellation or mitigation of the disposition in the case, but the appeals review committee

on July 18, 2014, the part that the Plaintiff intended to take care of K among the facts stated in the grounds for the instant disciplinary action.

(2) All parts other than the above paragraphs are recognized, and the plaintiff's act is the State.

It constitutes violations of Articles 56, 61, and 63 of the Public Officials Act, and considering various circumstances.

The plaintiff's action on the ground that "the plaintiff is responsible for the disposition of this case."

A decision to dismiss the hearing was made.

(b) disciplinary action against K and objection to K;

1) On August 5, 2013, the Defendant is dismissed from office against K in relation to the fact that drinking control is prohibited for E.

The disposition was taken by K, after the review of appeal against the above appeals review committee, Busan District Court

In 2013Guhap4546, a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition of removal was filed, and the above court filed a lawsuit on August 2014

14. While there are grounds for disciplinary action against K as set out below (the grounds for disciplinary action against K), the following shall be recognized:

[The reason for the deviation and abuse of discretionary power] The above removal disposition, like the statement, shall be subject to the discretion of the person having authority to take the action.

The court rendered a judgment revoking the above removal disposition, deeming it to have exceeded its limit as illegal.

(c)

[2] On October 10, 2012, 20: 00 : 00 : 100 Da, which was known to the office near Busan Franc Police Station, was exposed to drinking operation from the Busan Franc Police Station International Team (the team leader J). 1) to the Plaintiff, who worked together with him on the duty of the Plaintiff . . Da, . Da, Da, Da, Da, Da, Da, Da, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, and Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, and Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, Ga, 2008.

② 원고는 과거 상당기간 K의 상관으로 같은 경찰서에 근무한 적이 있는 데다가 앞으로도 K의 직속 상관으로 같이 근무하게 될 가능성을 배제할 수 없는 사정 등에 비추어K이 상관인 원고의 위와 같은 청탁을 거절하기가 쉽지는 않았을 것으로 보이는 점③ K이 E를 임의 귀가시킨 위법한 직무를 수행한 대가로 E로부터 직접적인 금품을 수수한 정황은 발견되지 아니한 점④ KO E를 임의 귀가시킨 날로부터 4개월 정도 지난 후에 원고로부터 500만 원을 수수한 것은 사실이나 , 위 금원의 액수 및 사건 무마일과 금품 수수일간의 시간 간격 등에 비추어 위 금원이 직접적으로 E를 임의 귀가시킨 데 대한 대가로 보기는 어렵고 ,오히려 K이 원고의 지시를 은폐하기 위하여 축소진술을 하여준 대가 혹은 사직한 K에대한 위로금의 성격으로 보이는 점 ( 원고 역시 K이 2013 . 2 . 18 . 사직원을 제출하자 ," 집사람과 여행도 가고 달래주라 " 며 혼자 책임을 지고 사직원을 제출한 것에 대한 대가로 500만 원을 주었다고 진술하고 있다 )⑤ K이 원고에게 음주운전 무마 혹은 축소진술에 대한 대가를 먼저 요구한 것도 아니고 ,위 금원을 수수한 날로부터 한 달이 채 지나기 전에 원고에게 그대로 반환한 점⑥ 한편 원고는 ' K에게 사실상 음주운전 단속을 해결하도록 지시하고 , K이 축소진술을 하여 준 대가로 500만 원을 지급하였으며 , 수시로 관내를 이탈하여 헬스와 사우나를 하였다 ' 등의 징계사유로 K의 징계처분보다 낮은 해임처분을 받았는데 , 비위의 정도 및비난 가능성 등에 비추어 원고가 K에 비하여 그 죄질이 낮다고 보이지 아니하는 점⑦ K과 함께 근무하였던 다수의 경찰관들이 K에 대한 선처를 탄원하고 있는 점⑧ K은 경찰공무원으로 근무한 22년 동안 경찰청장 표창 3회 등 총 25회의 표창을 수상할 정도로 성실하게 업무를 수행해 왔고 , 특히 2006 . 경 역주행 차량을 추격하며 저지하는 과정에서 약 6주간의 치료를 요하는 중상을 입어 공무상 요양 승인 결정을 받은⑨ 공무원의 징계 종류 중 파면은 공무원의 신분을 박탈함에 그치지 않고 K과 같은 재직기간 5년 이상의 공무원의 경우에는 퇴직급여와 퇴직수당의 각 1 / 2을 감액하고 , 5년간 공직취임의 제한이 따르는 가장 중한 징계처분인 점

2) The Defendant appealed against the above judgment of the first instance court as Busan High Court 2014 - 22083:

On January 21, 2015, the above appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the defendant's appeal, and around that time the court rendered a judgment.

The above judgment became final and conclusive.

3) Since then, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension from office against K for three months.

[Ground of Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul No. 1

2 Entry of evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff made the instant request to a traffic control officer, or resolved the crackdown on drinking driving to K.

There is no instruction to do so, and there is no demand to resign or deliver money and valuables in return.

There is no Do Governor. However, from July 12, 2012 to January 9, 2013, the Plaintiff is out of 3 to 4-time working hours.

B. However, it is true that the cellular phone is included in vinyl at the time, and it is always tension with it.

In preparation for the emergency situation. On the other hand, the official commendation of the director of the Public Security Headquarters and the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs were given to the plaintiff.

The Defendant, even though he/she has received a single official commendation, a single official commendation and other 29 times;

the disposition of this case does not reduce the disciplinary action upon the plaintiff. Accordingly, the disposition of this case

In the absence of sufficient investigation, there is an error of misconception of facts concerning the grounds for disciplinary action and deviation and abuse of discretion.

B. Relevant legislation

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the existence of the grounds for the instant disciplinary action

all statements of evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 11, and 12 shall include the purpose of the whole pleadings.

- The plaintiff serves as a subordinate employee at the same police station, such as the main contents of the grounds for disciplinary action of this case.

The direction or solicitation to K with which one was available to prevent the crackdown on drinking driving of E, and the same shall apply;

In the process of inspecting the plaintiff's participation, K is responsible for mixedness by hiding the fact of the plaintiff's participation.

5 million won to K as compensation or consolation money for the submission of resignation after making a statement;

on February 10, 2012, members of the private post having jurisdiction over the workplace under the name of the Dong branch of high school.

(1) When he/she is registered, he/she has committed an act of corruption, such as using the above letter of concern during working hours.

of the State Public Officials Act, which violates Articles 56, 61, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act.

It is reasonable to see that it falls under those.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s allegation of facts concerning the grounds for disciplinary action.

2) Determination as to whether or not there is deviation or abuse of discretionary power

Where disciplinary action is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official due to grounds for disciplinary action;

Whether or not to take an action is at the discretion of the authorized person, but the exercise of the discretionary power by the authorized person.

(1) If the disciplinary action has become significantly unreasonable by social norms, the person who has the authority to take the action shall have the discretion to take the action.

such disposition shall be deemed to be unlawful only if it is deemed that it has been abused, and the

The specific case in order to consider that the disciplinary action against such person has considerably lost validity under social norms.

of the facts and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, and the administration to achieve by the disciplinary action.

When a judgment is made by comprehensively taking into account various factors, such as purpose, criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, the details of such disciplinary action;

that is clearly unreasonable (Supreme Court Decision 1997Na1125 delivered on November 25, 197)

Pursuant to Article 14637 of the Act, even if some of the grounds for multiple disciplinary actions are not recognized, the same shall apply.

If it is sufficient to recognize the validity of the disciplinary action even with only some of the grounds for such disciplinary action

Even if a disciplinary measure is taken, it is not illegal (Supreme Court Decision 2002Du202 delivered on September 24, 2002).

620 see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 6620

However, in light of the above recognized facts and the evidence as seen earlier, the following circumstances revealed.

(1) The Plaintiff’s inspection of the crackdown on the drinking driving of E through K, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s crackdown on the drinking driving of E through K.

During the process, K is responsible for the divorce and submits the resignation after making a statement of reduction;

An act of delivering five million won to K with consideration or consolation money is a police officer in good faith and duty of good faith.

An act that seriously violates the duty of integrity and that does not cause the public confidence in the police.

(2) As to such an act, the police officer's dignity of the whole police.

If a police officer does not take strict disciplinary action, he/she shall commit an illegal act such as drinking driving.

It is difficult to expect fair and strict crackdowns, and driving under the jurisdiction of the police.

the police officer himself or herself or the police officer concerned may incur expenses in equity in the case of

To police officers working together, the fairness in the application of the law and the duty of integrity of police officers

(3) Control of drinking driving of E in accordance with the direction or solicitation of the plaintiff

for K who directly franced E in the atmosphere of the police station in order to francate B:

The removal disposition was rendered, but the revocation disposition became final and conclusive in the revocation lawsuit against the above removal disposition.

The disciplinary action for the three-month period of suspension was taken, and the relationship between the plaintiff and K and the above two persons were committed.

In light of the degree, the Plaintiff would be relatively more likely to criticize compared to K.

(4) in determining the level of disciplinary action against the plaintiff, the defendant complies with the rules of the former disciplinary action.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff works as a police officer for a long time.

Even if there are circumstances to consider the Plaintiff, such as the fact that an official commendation was given in the instant case, the instant case

The substance of the disposition is clearly unreasonable from an objective point of view, and is obviously unreasonable from social norms.

In addition, it does not seem that the person who has the authority to take an action has exceeded or abused the discretionary power.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.

Judges Kim Hong-il

Judges Lee Hong-hoon

Judges Kim Gi-sung

A person shall be appointed.