2016Guhap51076 Revocation of disciplinary action, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

The Commissioner of Gangwon-do Police Agency

June 2017 6.20

July 18, 2017

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Defendant’s demotion disposition against Plaintiff on February 4, 2016 and disciplinary action equivalent to twice as KRW 1,376,000.

The imposition of additional dues shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 28, 1981, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on November 28, 1981, and was promoted to the reduction on October 1, 2010;

The head of B police station investigation division from January 28, 2015 to November 10, 2015, and the head of B police station investigation division from November 11, 2015 to November 2015, and the head of B police station investigation division from November 11, 2015 to 2016.

1. By December 24, 200, the Director of the Cpolice Station served as the Director of the Cpolice Station.

B. On February 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) out of the grounds for the request for a disciplinary resolution, as described in the following letters; (b) Paragraph (1) of this Article.

Articles 7, 21, 22, and 36 of the Regulations on the Custody and Escort of Suspects.

The former State and the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 13288, May 18, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply); and hereinafter the former State

Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) (hereinafter referred to as "Public Officials Act") is a violation of Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and Article 2-Ga (cosmetics, Food, etc.)

The Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency (the receipt of a large number of gifts on December 2, 2016) shall be amended on December 2, 2016.

Article 14 of the former Act before amendment, hereinafter referred to as the "Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency" and the former Act

For the reason that it constitutes a violation of Article 61 (Duty of Integrity) of the APublic Officials Act, the former State Service against the Plaintiff

Any dismissal disposition by applying Article 78 or 78-2 of the Unclaimed Act and any dismissal disposition equivalent to two times the amount of KRW 1, 376, 000;

The imposition of additional dues was made.

1. The Chairperson of the D Group (E, 72 years of age) on May 20, 2015, 20: 3: 5 hours in attendance at the B police station's room (G police station's room 5 units) for convenience, such as holding an interview at least 3 times during the period of 2015; 4 hours in attendance at the Plaintiff's office (hereinafter referred to as "one disposition ground for 1: 04-13: 40 minutes in attendance at the Plaintiff's office) or at least 5 minutes in attendance at the Plaintiff's office (hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff's office") for the purpose of 2: 3 hours in attendance at the bar: 1: 04-13: 44 (1); 1: 20 minutes in attendance at the Plaintiff's office for 5 hours in total; 2: 3 hours in attendance at the Plaintiff's office.

18 . 10 : 49 ~ 11 : 54 ( 1시간 5분 ) , 9 . 27 . 10 : 19 ~ 10 : 52 ( 33분 ) , 9 . 28 . 08 : 49 ~ 10 : 14 ( 1시간 25분 ) 등 총 5회에 걸쳐 최소 33분 , 최대 1시간 25분 동안 변호사 출석 전 사전 출감다 . F 변호사 접견 후 , 지연 입감 6회 ( 이하 , ‘ 제3처분사유 ' 라 한다 )2015 . 9 . 9 . 14 : 17경 F 변호사 접견을 마치고 변호사가 과장실에서 퇴실하였음에도14 : 52경까지 35분간 과장실에 머무르게 하고 , 9 . 15 . 13 : 49 ~ 14 : 35 ( 46분 ) , 9 . 16 .14 : 16 ~ 14 : 48 ( 32분 ) , 9 . 17 . 13 : 29 ~ 15 : 02 ( 1시간 33분 ) , 9 . 21 . 14 : 30 ~ 15 : 38 ( 1시간 8분 ) ,9 . 29 . 10 : 20 ~ 10 : 50 ( 31분 ) 등 총 6회에 걸쳐 최소 31분 , 최대 1시간 33분 동안 지연 입감라 , 자해 우려가 있는 반입금지 물품인 긴 수건 지급 ( 이하 , ‘ 제4처분사유 ' 라 한다 )유치인들이 사용하는 수건은 규격품 ( 가로세로 30㎝ ) 으로 별도 제작하여 지급하고 있으나 , 원고는 2015년 7월 말경이나 8월 초순경 자해 우려가 있는 60 ~ 65m 가량의 길이가 긴극세사 재질의 수건을 가져와 E에게 지급【 B지청에서 2015 . 7 . 23 . 게임산업진흥법 위반으로 B경찰서 관리대상 조직폭력 G파 행동대원 H을 구속지휘하여 , B경찰서 유치장 ( 대용감방 5호실 ) 에 2015 . 10 . 2 . 까지 수감한 기간중에 】가 , 출입감지휘서 없이 2회 출감 , 과장실에서 면담 ( 이하 , ‘ 제5처분사유 ' 라 한다 )2015 . 9 . 22 . 16 : 16 ~ 16 : 33 ( 17분 ) , 10 . 2 . 17 : 44 ~ 18 : 131 ) ( 29분 ) 면담을 목적으로 입출감지휘서 없이 과장실로 출감하였으나 면담신청서 면담내용 등 근무일지에 기록이 없고 ,다 . 출입감지휘서 없이 5회 출감 , 원고 사무실 ( 과장실 ) 에서 처 ( H ) , 같은 조직 G파 행동대원 , 불상인에게 면회 등 편의 제공 ( 이하 , ‘ 제6처분사유 ' 라 한다 )2015 . 9 . 28 . 11 : 34 ~ 12 : 47 ( 1시간 13분 ) , 10 . 1 . 10 : 15 ~ 11 : 38 ( 1시간 23분 ) 등 2회에걸쳐 출입감지휘서 없이 과장실로 출감시켜 같은 관리대상 G파 행동대원 1 , 불상남 , H의처에게 면회 등 편의 제공2015 . 9 . 24 . 09 : 00 ~ 10 : 06 ( 1시간 6분 ) , 9 . 26 . 13 : 58 ~ 15 : 06 ( 1시간 8분 ) , 9 . 30 .11 : 17 ~ 12 : 28 ( 1시간 11분 ) 등 총 3회에 걸쳐 출입감지휘서 없이 출감시켜 과장실에서 H의처 , 불상남 · 녀에게 면회 등 편의 제공( B경찰서 유치장에 입감된 J ( 5호실 ) , 불상남 ( 2호실 ) , K ( 5호실 ) , L ( 1호실 ) , M ( 6호실 ) , N ( 6호실 ) 등 6명의 유치인 ( 이하 , ' L 등 ' 이라 한다 ) 에 대하여 출입감지휘서 없이 6회 출감 , 원고사무실 ( 과장실 ) 등에서 면담 】가 . 2015 . 8 . 17 . 13 : 06 ~ 13 : 27 ( 21분 ) , 9 . 9 . 12 : 31 ~ 13 : 02 ( 31분 ) , 9 . 17 . 08 : 08 ~ 09 : 32 ( 1 )

On September 12, 24: 44 to 12: 59 (15 minutes), 11 to 15: 23 (12 minutes), 9: 22: 11 to 11: 26 to 42: 11: 26 to 42 (16 minutes) of an interview at the head of the division without an entry command, and violates the "Rules on the Inducement and Escort of Suspects" (hereinafter referred to as "7 disposal grounds"; 00 trillion won and 30 trillion won and 60 trillion won and 60 trillion won and 80 trillion won and 60 others: 00 won and 10 others, 00 won and 10 others, 00 won and 10 others, 00 won and 10 others, 00 won and 10 others, 00 won and 10 others.

C. The Plaintiff’s dismissal disposition and revocation or mitigation of the imposition of disciplinary surcharge to the appeals review committee

On June 16, 2016, by filing a petition seeking a disciplinary action; changing a dismissal disposition to a demotion; and imposing a disciplinary surcharge;

A decision to dismiss a claim regarding a disposition was rendered (hereinafter the same shall apply) and is mitigated by a ranking disposition on June 16, 2016.

(i) The disposition of disciplinary action of this case is referred to as the disposition of disciplinary action of this case, and the disposition of disciplinary action of this person on February 4, 2016 and the disposition of disciplinary action of this case.

The term "each disposition of this case" is referred to as "each disposition of this case".

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2

(E) Eul evidence Nos. 40 and 42, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Addition of grounds for disciplinary action;

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency shall serve as the basis for the initial disposition.

Only to the extent that the basic grounds and factual relations are recognized to be identical, other reasons shall be added.

The identity of the basic facts here is the legal ground for disposition.

based on the specific facts before the evaluation as the basic social facts; and

(1) is determined at the time of the initial disposition of the additional or modified reasons;

It was not specified that there was a prior existence at the time of the disposition, and the parties are also aware of that fact.

The reason for the original disposition cannot be identical to that of the original disposition (Supreme Court Decision 2003.12.)

11. See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8395 Decided 2003

The defendant had reached this court and was subject to new disposition when the plaintiff transferred the case to Q Jong-type division.

The convenience was provided by unleashing a passenger, and E used a second-story 9 room at night by mixing it with a mixed person.

Providing a smoking machine, flaging machine, etc., and providing meals with E and F attorney-at-law after delivering food.

Then, the employer asserts that the employee's personal card was settled and claimed for the investigation expenses

Sector is described only in the column of the "reasons for the Demand for a disciplinary action" in the statement of reasons for the disciplinary action (No. 1-2)

Commission's decision (A) is not written in the part of "the judgment of the Disciplinary Committee", and is not written in the part of "the Judgment of the Disciplinary Committee."

2) The Plaintiff does not state that the above act violates the duty of integrity, etc. even though it does not indicate that it violates the duty of integrity, etc.

The act is considered to have not been resolved despite the request for a disciplinary resolution.

However, each action asserted by the defendant is based on the grounds for the previous disposition and the social fact-based.

Since the guidance is not the same, the foregoing disposition reason is not allowed.

3. Whether each disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Whether the defendant has rendered distinguished services to the plaintiff under Article 7 (6) 3 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials

In submitting a written confirmation in attached Form 1-2 stating the official matters to the Disciplinary Committee;

Each disposition of this case, since it was not submitted or confirmed to the plaintiff,

There is a procedural error.

2) ① The Plaintiff did not intentionally allow an interview to E without a lawyer’s presence (No. 1)

to provide convenience to E only when an attorney-at-law arrives later than the meeting time.

There is no prior absence (the ground for the second disposition), ③ interview upon the E’s request for an interview, and only the interview has been conducted.

(3) No delay in providing information to the police, and no delay in providing information to the police (as the grounds of the third disposition), 4

under this chapter only during the period of E’s bath (grounds for Disposition No. 4), and Ha for E’s management, etc.

The meeting shall be held and the meeting shall be permitted according to the judgment of the official duties and shall be provided with unfair convenience.

In order to investigate the current status of tobacco distribution in the detention room, L, etc. is limited to the withdrawal of L, etc., and entry.

Attention of documents not drawn up is merely an administrative error (for reasons of Nos. 5, 6, 7)

such a violation of such regulations is not recognized as a ground for action.

3) The Plaintiff received as a formal gift a non-shot and hand Hand, and does not receive any connection with his/her duties.

The Government has received 14, not only 23 plastic sets but also 14, and the foregoing shots and handblings shall:

It is merely a good for publicity and a disposition on the violation of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency.

No reason is also recognized.

4) Even if the grounds for the disposition are recognized, ① the Plaintiff’s duty of police officials for about 35 years is faithfully satisfied.

to be selected as an exemplary public official in the performance of the presidential commendation, the Prime Minister commendation, etc.

There is a case of being dismissed or demoted due to the reason that the entrance and exit command book was not prepared properly.

disciplinary action on the ground of the violation of the custody management regulations, such disciplinary action, such as reduction of salary, reprimand, shall be subject to such minor action.

(3) The plaintiff shall not be obliged to pay for any 36,00 won per piece of plastic sets.

Above 40,00 won) 14 and 7 handclocks (2,500 won per opening to 3,000 won per unit), and the plaintiff, ever, ever.

The amount received is less than one million won, and 4. The plaintiff is merely a passively boom and handk.

Considering the fact that he only received a picture and delivered shots, etc. to the employees of B police stations, etc.

Each disposition of this case is in violation of the principle of equality, the principle of proportionality, etc. and is in violation of discretionary power.

There is an error of law.

(b) Relevant provisions;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether there are procedural defects in each of the dispositions in this case

Article 7 (6) 3 of the Decree on Disciplinary Action of Public Officials shall be attached Form 1 when requesting a disciplinary committee to take disciplinary action.

The letter of confirmation under paragraph (2) shall be submitted, and the letter of confirmation shall be submitted in the form of the certificate.

In the column of public matters, the date of reward, the type of reward, and the executive office shall be stated in the column of public matters. However, the above certificate is required.

According to the results, the first disciplinary action is subject to the Plaintiff’s public matters at the time of the resolution (No. 1).

A) In the latter part of the decision of the appeals review committee (Evidence A 2), the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same in the following cases:

In the minutes of the disciplinary committee, a disciplinary committee member shall have a written confirmation stating the plaintiff's meritorious (official commendation status).

The plaintiff's award is explained to be confirmed and the plaintiff's award is confirmed and the plaintiff's award is asserted.

It can be recognized that both claims on the plaintiff's public matters are heated without any son

C. If so, all materials concerning the plaintiff's public matters at the time of each disposition of this case were submitted.

It is reasonable to see that the prior plaintiff's assertion is reflected in a different premise.

2) Whether to recognize grounds for disciplinary action

A) Whether the reason for the violation of the host management regulations is recognized

Evidence and evidence Nos. 9 and evidence Nos. 1 through 11, 14, 15, 17, 21, 37

In full view of the following circumstances that may be recognized by entry or video, the Plaintiff, E, H,

Articles 7(1) and 9(1) of the Rules on the Custody and Escort of Suspected Persons in the custody of L, etc. on purpose;

In violation of Article 19(2)1, Article 19(4), and Article 37(2), convenience was provided to E, etc.

(1) Any act that violates the duty of good faith prescribed in Article 56 of the former State Public Officials Act;

reasons for disciplinary action are applicable.

(1) With respect to the grounds for the disposition No. 1, the Plaintiff shall have prior documents as stated in the relevant grounds for disposition.

F. by using a copy of the identification card of a lawyer interview officer, prepare a direction for access to the defense counsel;

Then, the F attorney-at-law was absent from the position of a company that is not a defense counsel in the director's office

The Institute, etc. and the 1 hour to 40 minutes, 36 minutes, 2 hours to 23 minutes, provided convenience, which shall be avoided.

The plaintiff is contrary to Articles 19(4) and 37(2) of the Rules on the Custody and Escort. The plaintiff is contrary to the custody officer.

The team was aware of the fact that it has a copy of the F attorney identification card, and the F Attorney-at-Law

at the request of a meeting, the lawyer who had the employee of the company meet with E and had the employee of the company interview;

On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that there was no intention because the contact did not immediately cease, but 1) the plaintiff argued that there was no intention.

An interview with E by means of an identification card even though the F attorney did not attend the meeting in the warden;

The defendant asserted that there was no fact, but after the defendant submitted relevant evidence, on April 14, 2017.

As above, the plaintiff did not appear in the court below even if following the plaintiff's argument

under the circumstances that E was aware of the fact that it will provide E with a meeting with employees of the company; and

R, S, and T in the inspection and investigation conducted by the Si Police Station B, a copy of the Plaintiff’s identification card of “F attorney”

When the director's office is kept in his/her custody, he/she shall attach his/her identification card to the R when visiting E.

The statement stated "B" (No. 1, 2, No. 15-1, No. 17, No. 17, etc.)

In light of the above, it is difficult to believe the above argument of the Plaintiff.

(2) With respect to the reasons for disposition Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff is a F-Attorney as described in the pertinent reasons for disposition.

E prior to the arrival of the department room or after the completion of the meeting with the F lawyer;

The admission delayed and provide E with convenience to stay in a department room, not a detention room.

This is against Article 19(4) of the Rules on the Custody and Escort of Suspects. The plaintiff is against E

The withdrawal of B in advance is due to the fact that the F lawyer was late to attend, and delay in E

The plaintiff argued that the interview was due to his oral request, but the plaintiff was present at the F lawyer's meeting.

In other words, it is objective to view that there was an interview with E at the time of the plaintiff's assertion.

Considering the absence of evidence, the Plaintiff’s act of violating the provision alone is determined.

shall not be deemed to be reasonable (at the time of an interview with the Plaintiff, the request of E and the measures to be taken shall not be deemed to be working.

there is no evidence to deem that it was written in the notice, and contrary to Article 21(2) of the Rules on the Custody and Escort of Suspects

(c).

(3) with respect to the reasons for the disposition No. 4, at the time B police station investigation1 and the head of the host management team at that time.

In the inspection and investigation, whether the U was suffering from the time when ‘E was first reduced' at the time of the lower time;

벗어 철창에 걸어두고 목을 들이 밀고 죽는다고 소동을 벌였고 , 유서를 다 써 놨다고

In light of the fact that she made a statement that she would die (No. B. 11-1), it is more thoroughly to E in light of the fact that she made a statement

Although the plaintiff did not bring in the goods that are likely to do so, the plaintiff must direct U.S. to E

of 60 to 65cm in length, as they are returned to the suspect, and the rules of attracting and carrying the suspect.

Article 9(1) and Article 19(2)1 are contrary to paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)1 of the same Article. The plaintiff shall only during his/her bath while he/she takes a bath.

Although there is no evidence to support the payment under the supervision of the inspector, there is no evidence to support it;

Rather, according to the V’s statement (No. 37 No. 37), following the payment to E of a tension

after the completion, it is known that a case has been recovered.

1) With respect to the grounds for Disposition 5, 6, and 7, the Plaintiff shall withdraw H, L, etc. without the entry order.

(1) The court below held that the court below did not err by misapprehending Article 7(1) of the Rules on the Custody and Escort of the Suspect.

Paragraph 1 does not provide for an exception to the withdrawal of a custodian without a certificate of access;

L to hold a interview with H to request the management of E or to investigate the current status of tobacco entry;

It may be deemed that an interview with the Plaintiff constitutes a ground to justify the violation of the Plaintiff’s rules.

No. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s failure to prepare a written direction for entry is merely an administrative error.

U does not have to prepare the entry order of L, etc. to the plaintiff in the inspection investigation.

From the plaintiff's defect whether or not the entry command book is a problem, and H's entry permit is a question.

Fence also does not prepare a written direction of entry into and exit from the test held by the Plaintiff, a protective shelter, who is the host.

U.S.’s statement that the Plaintiff received instructions (No. B. 11-2), and U.S.’s statement as above

U’s statement is credibility because it specifically specifies the time when the Si was received, and B at that time

V and W, working in the report, also for the same purpose (No. 21-2, No. 37)

In light of the above, it is a simple administrative error that does not prepare a written command of entry.

does not judge that it is not a case.

B) Whether the grounds for the breach of integrity and the violation of the National Police Agency’s Code of Conduct are recognized

Evidence and evidence set forth above-mentioned Nos. 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26 through 30, 32, 35, 38

Considering the following facts or circumstances that can be recognized by each description, the Plaintiff

In violation of paragraph (1) of Article 14 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency, a duty-related E

It is determined that sets of gifts, etc. were received, which is the integrity prescribed in Article 61 of the former State Public Officials Act.

(1) Any act contrary to the law and constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.

(1) The Plaintiff’s sales by this hotel operated by E from E for a period of time after E’s completion.

Bbres and roller rinks, non-bus sets sold in P (58,000 won per dog) and handbres and hand cream

(6,000 won per opening), sublime and Jeju Jeju, etc., and Yangju-ju.

(2) Article 61(1) of the former State Public Officials Act provides that a public official shall receive cases in connection with his/her duties.

section 14 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency provides that no public official shall be a person related to his duties.

section 2(1) provides that no money, gift, or entertainment shall be received from him, and section 2(1)1 provides that

A job-related person is defined as an individual subject to investigation and supervision. The Plaintiff is a F attorney-at-law.

From 100 to E, in receipt of a request for delivery to high-income staff members due to E, and of a type of plastic sheet, etc.

Therefore, it is argued that there is no business relationship, but E is in violation of the Act on Specific Economic Crimes.

(Receives) A. B. is subject to investigation as it is detained on suspicion, and thus, it is subject to investigation.

2. The fact that he is a person related to duties referred to in subparagraph 1 of Article 2, and even according to the plaintiff's assertion, E isF defense.

The intention to be a case to the plaintiff or his employee who was born by him through his will is to do so.

Taking into account the fact that sets, etc. were provided and that the Plaintiff actually offered convenience to E as seen earlier.

If the plaintiff was paid a plastic set, etc. in relation to E's duties, it is determined that the plaintiff was paid.

(3) Article 14(1)4 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency (hereinafter “former Code of Conduct”) provides that many and unspecified persons.

The articles for public relations in order to capture shall be defined as an exception, but the plaintiff or B police station shall work as an exception.

employees are specified so that they cannot be regarded as many unspecified persons, and the relationship between the Plaintiff and E;

F Attorney-at-law in light of the developments on the line of duty and line of Hand-cream sets and cosmetics

X’s statement (No. 27 No. 27) and non-shot sets and handboxes, that they were seen to the extent of goods given in the company.

Plaintiff’s written statement (No. 12 No. 12) of P representative director Co., Ltd., a sample sample, is alone

It is difficult to view the act as an exception.

(4) F. F. F. H. H. H. bags containing 15 or more of its officers and employees;

A. The statement that the remainder except two others was delivered to the Plaintiff (No. 5)

B W W. W. W. W. A. A. H. A. A. H. A. 12

However, in the decision of the appeals review committee, the plaintiff 5 to 7 handbags in the inspection and investigation of the plaintiff, and the non-bagics

The fact that he stated that he had received 23 sets, and as a result of the investigation, he received a non-replacement set.

In the light of the fact that there are 22 employees, and 21 employees who take hand are confirmed to have 21 employees (Evidence B No. 31).

The judgment that the Plaintiff received at least 23 plastic sets and 7 handbags from E

(2).

3) Whether the discretionary authority is deviates or abused or not

Where disciplinary action is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, any disposition;

Whether or not to take the action is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the action, except that the person having authority to take the action is at the discretion.

A disciplinary action which has seriously lost validity by social norms and has abused discretionary power to be assigned to the person having authority over disciplinary action.

be deemed to have been illegal only in the case of being deemed to have been subject to a disciplinary action against the public official

In order to consider that a disposition has considerably lost its validity under social norms, disciplinary action shall be taken according to specific cases.

Details and nature of the alleged misconduct, administrative purpose and disciplinary action to be achieved by a disciplinary action;

When making a comprehensive determination of various elements, such as definition criteria, the details of the disciplinary action are objectively clear.

If it is deemed unfair (Supreme Court Decision 2011Du29540 Decided February 27, 2014)

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision).

The evidence mentioned above and the evidence mentioned in No. 42 and the whole purport of the pleading are recognized.

the following circumstances, i.e., the elimination of an improper solicitation in our society; and

(1) To guarantee the performance of duties, to establish public service discipline, and to recover public trust in police officers;

The public interest to be sought is compared to the disadvantage that the plaintiff would suffer due to the disposition of this case.

(2) The plaintiff shall not be deemed as 1, 376, 000 won or more from E.

Won [ = 1,334,00 won per dog (58,000 won per dog x 23) + 42,000 won per dog (6,000 won per dog 6,000 won per dog)

Won x 7) He received a reasonable gift and offered convenience to E in breach of good faith;

regulations on disciplinary action, etc. of the former police officer (amended by the Rules of the National Police Agency No. 508 of February 29, 2016)

[Attachment 2] Rule on Disciplinary Action, etc. for Gu Police Officers (hereinafter referred to as "Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc. for Gu Police Officers")

money and valuables of at least one million won but less than three million won in connection with free, and the illegal and unfair disposition has been made;

If it has been given or received actively, it shall be subject to removal or removal from office, and it shall be passively given or received.

In the case of dismissal, the dismissal is required, and ③ the violation of the duty of good faith by the plaintiff is committed.

Rules concerning disciplinary action, etc. [Attached Table 1] The degree of violation of the duty shall be serious and intentional;

U.S.A. In such a case, it is stipulated that the plaintiff be subject to removal or removal from office, and 4 the plaintiff

An official commendation twice, the Prime Minister’s commendation once, and twice the official commendation of the Minister of Public Administration and Security, etc., which has been awarded, shall be:

Grounds for disciplinary mitigation prescribed in Article 9 (1) of the Rules on Disciplinary Action, etc. of the Gu Police Officers

However, the act of being subject to the duty by E in relation to the job, among the grounds for the disciplinary action

The disciplinary action cannot be mitigated because it falls under Article 9 (3) 1 of the Rule, and the defendant is not able to reduce the disciplinary action.

4. Criteria for disciplinary action and the Enforcement Rules of the former Decree on Disciplinary Action against Public Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 122 on December 29, 2015)

(1) If any of the disciplinary charges set forth in attached Table 1-3 is imposed on the Plaintiff, the action shall be brought against the Plaintiff

6. A disposition imposing disciplinary additional charges equivalent to twice the amount of such disposition or receipt: 1, 376, 000 won; 6

On June 16, 2016, the appeals review committee shall serve at B police stations with the Plaintiff’s plastic sets, handbags, and handbags.

Faithful service, such as taking part in part to employees, arresting 109 members of organized violence during the service period, etc.

(7) The defendant's employee in charge of other custody has been reduced due to his dismissal, taking into account that it was dismissed.

not any disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff, but any measure of this case was taken against the Plaintiff, and thus equality is equal.

The assertion that it violates the rule of law is permissible under the rule of law because it claims the equality of illegality.

(8) All the appeals filed by the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 11 are the suspect.

The fact that the custody and escort rules are violated and the duty of integrity is not violated and that the duty of integrity is not violated.

In full view of all the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, the instant disposition is considered in the society.

It cannot be evaluated as significantly losing validity in light of the common sense, and rather, a crime of criteria for disciplinary action

Inasmuch as it can be seen that it was conducted within the above extent, this part of the plaintiff's objection on a different premise

Sectoral argument is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and all of the claims are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be determined.

The presiding judge's staticness of judge

Judges Kim Gin-han

For the purpose of judges;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.