2017Guhap764 Revocation of Disposition of Reduction of Salary

○○

Sungnam-si

The Commissioner of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency 1)

Litigation Performers;

September 14, 2017

November 9, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of salary reduction for January 26, 2017 against the Plaintiff is revoked for January 26, 201.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was appointed to ○ on November 27, 2009, and was promoted to ○○ on March 11, 2014, and thereafter served as a police officer in A police station from August 11, 2016 to March 200.

B. On August 25, 2016, the Defendant, following a resolution by the General Disciplinary Committee on Police Officers, issued a one-month disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56, 57, and 63 of the State Public Officials Act, Article 18(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act, Articles 10 and 10-2 of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials of the National Police Agency, thereby falling under Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act.

A person shall be appointed.

C. On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a petition review with the appeals review committee for a disciplinary action for one month of the above suspension. On January 13, 2017, the appeals review committee rendered a decision to change the disciplinary action for one month of the above suspension from office into one month of the reduction of salary (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disciplinary action that was changed to one month of the reduction of salary by the said decision”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Parties’ assertion

The defendant asserted that the disposition of this case was lawful under the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations

C. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was excessively unreasonable and excessively deviating from and abused the discretion, and that the said disposition was unlawful, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff contacted the civil petitioners by contingency during the divorce lawsuit pending on the outside of the spouse; (b) the frequency of contact with the civil petitioners is limited to twice; (c) there was no record of disciplinary action; and (d) the Plaintiff has been given official commendation on several occasions by working in a usual sense; and (b) the fact that the instant disposition is in profoundly against the fault.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

When a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, it shall be at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure, and it shall be illegal only when the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has considerably lost validity as a matter of social norms and has abused discretionary power to the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. In order to deem that a disciplinary measure against a public official has considerably lost validity under social norms, the disciplinary measure should be determined by taking into account various factors, such as the content and nature of the offense causing the disciplinary measure, administrative purpose to be achieved by the disciplinary measure, criteria for the guidance of disciplinary action, etc., and it should be deemed that the contents of the disciplinary measure are objectively unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du10895, Oct. 11, 2012, etc.).

In light of the following circumstances, even if the Plaintiff considers the aforementioned facts of recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17, and the images No. 8, which are known through the overall purport of the pleadings, it is difficult to view that the disadvantages that the Plaintiff would suffer from the instant disposition are so large that the Plaintiff could suppress the public interest to be achieved thereby, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① On July 17, 2016, the Plaintiff, despite having not been requested for assistance in criminal complaint by a civil petitioner, provided the civil petitioner with a legal advice on the establishment of a crime by telephone during the time that the civil petitioner reaches the scene.

② Around July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff sent Kaxo on August 2, 2016, to the civil petitioner at the new wall on August 2, 2016, with the content that prohibits the Defendant from private contact between police officers and female civil petitioners. The Plaintiff proposed personal contact irrelevant to police duties.

③ A civil petitioner is considered to have a considerable burden on the Plaintiff’s repeated liaison, and resisted the Plaintiff through his male-child organ.

④ Since the Plaintiff intentionally violates the duty to maintain dignity, the instant disposition constitutes a minor disposition, which is more serious than the standard of disciplinary action prescribed by the former Regulations concerning disciplinary action, etc. of police officers (where the degree of breach of duty is weak in relation to other types of violation of the duty to maintain dignity and there is intention: demotion or suspension from office).

4. Conclusion

Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Lee Dong-young

Judges Gangwon-won

Judges Kim Hyun-ju

1) The Director's "the Commissioner of the Gyeonggi-do Police Agency" appears to be a clerical error in the office of the Commissioner of the Gyeonggi-do Police Agency.

Relevant statutes

▣ 국가공무원법

Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith)

All public officials shall observe Acts and subordinate statutes, and perform faithfully their duties.

Article 57 (Duty to Comply with)

A public official shall obey any official order of his/her superior in performing his/her duties.

Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity)

No public official shall commit any act detrimental to his/her dignity, regardless of whether it is for his/her duties.

Article 78 (Grounds for Discipline)

(1) If a public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she shall request a resolution of disciplinary action, and take a disciplinary action according to the result of the resolution of disciplinary action:

1. Where he/she violates this Act or any order issued under this Act;

2. Functional duties (including those imposed in connection with the status of public officials by other Acts and subordinate statutes);

When he violates or neglects his duties;

3. When he commits an act detrimental to his prestige or dignity, regardless of a connection with his duties - ended.