(a) declared the invalidity of a defective disciplinary decision, and thereafter the same disciplinary action does not constitute double disciplinary action;

(b) "When the investigation is in progress in criminal cases" in Article 42 of the Central Information Department Staff Act means the time of prosecution, that is, until the completion of the investigation as a criminal case.

C. The purport of Article 28 of the Central Information Department Employee Act is not to stipulate that “it may issue an order of leave of absence” is an order of leave of absence (limited).

(a) declared the invalidity of a defective disciplinary decision, and thereafter the same disciplinary action does not constitute double disciplinary action;

(b) "When the investigation is in progress in criminal cases" in Article 42 of the Central Information Department Staff Act means the time of prosecution, that is, until the completion of the investigation as a criminal case.

C. The purport of Article 28 of the Central Information Department Employee Act is not to stipulate that “it may issue an order of leave of absence” is an order of leave of absence (limited).

Article 42 of the Central Information Division Act, Article 28 of the Central Information Division Act, Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act

Plaintiff

Head of Central Information Department

Seoul High Court Decision 70Gu283 delivered on November 17, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

(A) On October 18, 1969, the court below declared the invalidity of the disciplinary decision on the ground that the disciplinary decision against the plaintiff by the General Information General Disciplinary Committee of Sep. 25, 1969, which was made by the General Information Division of the Republic of Korea on Sep. 25, 1969, was defective without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to present, and subsequently confirmed that the disciplinary decision was made by supplementing the defect in the procedure by the above disciplinary committee, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion against res judicata under Article 41 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Rules of the Personnel of the Ministry of Information and Communications of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "the above case is not subject to double disciplinary measure"), and the above purport of

(B) In the judgment of Article 42 of the Central Information Department Act, there is no error of law in the judgment above in the interpretation of the text of the Article 42, since the court below judged that "the time when an investigation is being conducted in a criminal case, i.e., a criminal case, the time of prosecution until the completion of the investigation" was justified.

(C) In the case of a cause falling under each subparagraph of Article 28 of the Central Information Department Employee Act, the head of the Central Information Department may order the relevant employee to take a leave of absence, but the purport of the provision is not to say that the order to take a leave of absence belongs to the discretion of the head of the Central Information Department, and it is clear by the phrase that the head of the Central Information Department belongs to the discretion of the head of the Information Department. Therefore, it cannot be said that the head of the Central Information Department did not order the leave of absence and the disciplinary action was taken against the employee. It is justified in the judgment of the court below that there was no illegality in the disciplinary action in the case of the same opinion. The appeal to criticize the judgment below is groundless.

Therefore, there is no error in the court below's incomplete hearing.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Da-dong and Do-dong, both of which are proneed by the President of the Supreme Court