1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff A and B, which corresponds to the following additional payment order:

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for amendments or additions as prescribed in paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article

2. The revised and added part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “7 to 16 evidence” of the 6th three parallels “7 to 10, 12 to 15.”

The 14th 8 to 9th 18th 2nd 2nd 18 and second 18th 2nd of the judgment of the first instance shall each be subject to the "Rules on the Business Affairs of Missing Children, etc., and the Rules on the Business Affairs of Missing Children, etc., (the Rules of each National Police Agency)".

The following parts shall be added to the 16 table below the 15th table of the first instance judgment:

The definitions of terms used in these Rules are as follows: 3. The term "missing child, etc." means a missing child, etc. found by his/her guardian; 15th page of the judgment of the first instance shall be added to the following parts:

As a result of the inspection of the P police station of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, it was confirmed that the above 112 general situation room operation and reporting processing rules, the missing children, etc., and the guidelines for responding to missing cases in accordance with the work process rules, were violated.B) Police Officers AA, Z and ZF were subject to heavy disciplinary measures for three months of suspension from office, and the appeal examination was reduced to AA for police officers for one month of suspension.

When the claim was dismissed in the examination of the appeal, the Z filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the above three-month disciplinary action against the Seoul Administrative Court 2018Guhap7026, but on September 5, 2019, the judgment dismissing the claim was rendered on the grounds that the disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have abused discretion in light of the degree of misconduct and possibility of criticism, establishment of public discipline, and rehabilitation of public confidence in police officers, etc., and the judgment of the appellate court is in progress due to the dissatisfaction of the Z.

(Seoul High Court 2019Nu60372). Dan District Senior Professor(O) reduces his salary.