[1] The limitation of discretion in disciplinary action against public officials

[2] The case holding that a dismissal disposition taken against a service personnel who embezzled part of the contents while keeping lost materials reported by a passenger does not deviate from the scope of discretion

[1] Whether to take a disciplinary measure against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, but it is illegal only when the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as the exercise of the above discretionary power is recognized to have abused the discretion assigned to the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure because the disciplinary measure as the exercise of the discretionary power is obviously inappropriate

[2] The case holding that the dismissal disposition against the service personnel does not deviate from the scope of discretionary authority, on the ground that the act of the service personnel who embezzled part of the contents of a material reported by a passenger on the ground that he did not violate the guidelines for handling railroad lost property and constitutes embezzlement and commits a criminal offense, and that he did not impair his dignity, regardless of whether he was inside or outside of his duties, since the public official faithfully and faithfully performed his duties and did not injure his dignity, in violation of the provisions of Articles 56 and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, which stated that he did not neglect his dignity and did not constitute a case where he had a significant and intentional intention to commit such misconduct.

[1] Articles 56, 61, and 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act / [2] Articles 56, 61, and 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu564 delivered on December 27, 1983 (Gong1984, 274), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5627 delivered on February 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 995), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9145 delivered on March 27, 1992 (Gong192, 140), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4622 delivered on June 10, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1969)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Busan Regional Railroad Office

Daegu High Court Decision 96Gu1796 delivered on September 19, 1996

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff was found to have been dismissed for more than 7 years since 195 as members of the above 3-year railroad service by taking into account the facts that the plaintiff was found to have been dismissed for more than 7 years since 195, and the defendant was found to have been dismissed for more than 7 years from the above 3-year railroad service. The plaintiff was found to have been dismissed for more than 50,000 won for the above 1-year railroad service and was found to have been dismissed for more than 1-year government office for the above 7-year railroad service, and the defendant was found to have been dismissed for more than 1-year government office for the above 1-year railroad service and had been dismissed for more than 3-year government office for the above 1-year government office for the reason that the plaintiff was found to have been dismissed for more than 1-year government office for the above 1-year government office for the reasons that the defendant had been dismissed for more than 1-year government office for the above.

2. However, it is at the discretion of the person having authority to take disciplinary action to decide on which disciplinary action should be taken against a person under disciplinary action who is a public official. However, it is illegal to take a disciplinary action only when the person having authority to take disciplinary action, as a matter of social norms, has considerably lost validity (see Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu564, Dec. 27, 1983; 94Nu4622, Jun. 10, 194).

However, Article 56 of the Act provides that all public officials shall observe the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and faithfully perform their duties. Article 63 of the Act provides that public officials shall not engage in any act impairing their dignity, regardless of whether it is inside or outside their duties. Article 78 (1) of the Act provides that when public officials violate this Act and orders issued under this Act as grounds for disciplinary action, the act of violating their duties or neglecting their duties is committed under subparagraph 3, and Articles 2-2 and 3 of the Public Officials Service Regulations impose duties similar to those of Articles 56 and 63 of the Act. Article 63 of the Act provides that public officials shall not be deemed as public officials who have been subject to punishment for unlawful acts such as unlawful acts committed against the law, and all public officials who have been subject to punishment for unlawful acts such as unlawful acts committed against the law, and thus, they shall not be deemed as public officials who have been subject to punishment for unlawful acts of violation of the law, and thus, they shall not be deemed as public officials who have been subject to punishment for unlawful acts of violation of the law.

The lower court’s determination that a disciplinary action, which is a railroad public official’s disciplinary action, is an illegal disposition that deviatess from discretion solely on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, does not constitute an unlawful disposition that affected the conclusion of the judgment as a measure of misunderstanding the legal doctrine on the limit of discretion of disciplinary action in which a public official who committed a criminal act is aware of the sincere service status of the public official and open the way for him to continue to serve as a public official. The grounds of appeal on

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)