beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. After being appointed as a police officer on July 25, 2008, the Plaintiff had been on July 30, 2010, belonging to the Silung Police Station under the Defendant’s control and the B District.
B. On August 25, 201, at around 02:00, the Plaintiff took part in the arrest of thief upon receiving a request from thief to require support as a thief who had been engaged in night patrol duties, while performing night patrol duties. The said thief was arrested on the spot, and the damaged items were temporarily returned to D.
C. The Plaintiff was not a person in charge of the theft case, and even if the case had already been transferred to the police station with all relevant documents, the Plaintiff continued to communicate with D on a personal basis, on September 18:30, 201, by making telephone conversations on the part of D with a view to having the victim prepare a "certificate of acceptance" in relation to the return of the damaged goods, and finding D as a marina with work for D, without connection with his/her duties. On September 18:30, 201, D was divided into three small-scale bottles at a delivery or a restaurant, and she dump one disease per week at the Plaintiff's house at around 20:30.
On the other hand, at around 22:10 on the same day, E, who is a matrimonial engagement in D, called “D, coming to leave the police station, but has not yet returned to the police station,” and visited B as soon as possible.
At around 22:17 on the same day, the Plaintiff listened to the circumstances that E is found by telephone from a policeman belonging to the B District District, and immediately Da, and the steering gear of the B District and the neighboring wife enter a restaurant, and the Plaintiff returned to the restaurant, and the Plaintiff returned to the restaurant, and the Party that met D was strongly urged the Plaintiff to return to the B district.
E. As a result of the examination of the actual status of the Plaintiff’s work after the instant case, the Defendant conducted a crime prevention diagnosis once a month against F convenience stores, G filling stations, and H gas stations, and was instructed to report the results to the District Register for eight months after March 2011.