1. The Defendant’s reprimand disposition against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2018 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

A. On December 1, 1998, the Plaintiff was appointed as the protection post, and was promoted to the protection post on July 1, 2009, and served in the Gwangju District Office B (hereinafter “B branch”) from January 2015 to July 2018.

The plaintiff's superior who served in B branch was the protection officer C (hereinafter "official").

B. On August 1, 2018, the Defendant rendered a disposition of suspension from office for one month pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 56 (Duty of Fidelity) and Article 57 (Duty of Fidelity) of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s failure to perform duties, negligence of duties related to the designation of a community service cooperation organization, interference with and remarks from superior’s duties, neglect of duties related to the inquiry of entry and departure, and act of expulsion.”

Facts of disciplinary action.

A. On February 14, 2018, the Plaintiff immediately retired from the office without approval after filing an application for early retirement (17:00-18:00) for personal reasons in the situation where the Plaintiff cannot obtain prior approval due to his/her annual director and official business trip around 16:23, 2018, and the officer was approved after his/her return to this business trip.

B. On April 12, 2018, the Plaintiff of the Disciplinary Reason No. 2 No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act related to the Immigration Investigation”) approved the application for enforcement adjustment submitted by a person subject to community service order, and the officer in charge recognized the social problems, such as departure from the Republic of Korea without permission for a person on probation and confirmed whether he/she actually carried out overseas travel, and failed to comply with the order

C. The Plaintiff filed a petition review on this issue.

The Ministry of Personnel Management has determined that some of the grounds for the above disciplinary action is insufficient, and recognized the rest of the disciplinary action as follows, and the reason why the approving authority is absent shall not be subject to prior approval, and the superior is not subject to prior approval.