The case holding that a dismissal disposition against a police officer who left a place of work without permission of his superior is appropriate after a complaint is filed against a female who was sent to the workplace and a balone's injuries; and

The plaintiff's duty of good faith provided in Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of care provided in Article 58 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of care provided in Article 58 (1), the duty of care provided in Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, and the duty of care provided in Article 78 (1) of the same Act are violated so that the plaintiff's duty of care provided in Article 78 (1) of the same Act is violated, and the kind of disciplinary action is appropriate in light of the contents of the duty of care.

§ 56, 58, 63, and 78 of the State Public Officials Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu7759 delivered on October 31, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. Examining the evidence prepared by the court below in light of the records, we affirm the fact that the court below recognized the non-party 20 days of medical treatment as the non-party 3 without the permission of its superior officer in order to bring the problem to Daegu City without the permission of its superior officer, as the plaintiff was informed of the non-party 1, who was working for the Nowon-gu Police Station criminal department on March 198, 198, and was aware of the circumstances leading up to the situation leading up to the non-party 1, who was working for the Nowon-gu Police Station, and was able to take care of the non-party 1, who was working for the police station on December 28, 198.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition by the court below, the plaintiff's duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, duty of prohibiting the removal from work under Article 58 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, duty of prohibiting the removal from work under Article 63, and disciplinary reasons under Article 78 (1) of the same Act are violated. In light of the contents of the violation of the duty to maintain dignity, the dismissal disposition of this case as a kind of disciplinary action is proper, and therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law that deviates from the scope of discretion, such as theory of lawsuit, or there

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)