1. The Defendant’s disposition of reprimand issued to the Plaintiff on July 23, 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 police officer on August 29, 1992. From February 4, 2010 to February 4, 2010, the Plaintiff was serving in the Seoul Gangseobuk Police Station, and was promoted to “Security” on June 1, 2014, and is at the same rank until now.

B. On July 23, 2014, the Defendant issued a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff, while on duty on duty on duty on duty on June 8, 2014, did not report the person arrested as a flagrant offender to the team leader at will and did not release him/her at will and caused a criticism report” (hereinafter “instant reprimand disposition”) to the effect that the Plaintiff is punished by “reguination” pursuant to Article 78(1)1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act (hereinafter “instant reprimand disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the reprimand of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff alleged that the disposition of reprimand of this case was unlawful and revoked. The plaintiff asserted that the reprimand of this case should be revoked.

1) Pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Regulations on Disciplinary Measures, etc. against Police Officers, the Plaintiff’s award of B official commendation on August 24, 2009 ought to be considered as grounds for mitigation. Nevertheless, the Defendant rendered the instant reprimand disposition without considering it as grounds for mitigation. (2) The Plaintiff fulfilled his official duty in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant reprimand without considering the Plaintiff’s attitude of action, Plaintiff’s water experience, internal evaluation, etc. on the ground that there was a mere criticism report by the press.

Therefore, the defendant abused discretion in the process of issuing the reprimand of this case.

(b) as listed in the attached Form of the relevant statute;

C. According to Article 7(6)3 of the Decree on Disciplinary Measures against Public Officials, when demanding a resolution on disciplinary measures against a public official, a confirmation letter stating not only relevant data necessary for proving the grounds for disciplinary measures but also “public officials subject to mitigation.”