(a) The case holding that a disciplinary action was lawful on the grounds that the offering of a bribe before being appointed as a public school teacher was detrimental to the prestige or dignity of a teacher;

(b) The starting point for the prescription of disciplinary action, in cases of appointing a public official after offering a bribe;

A. An act before being appointed as a state public official may not be deemed a cause for disciplinary action during the term of office except in the case of Article 78(2) and (3) of the State Public Officials Act. However, even if an act before appointment was conducted, if it damages the body or dignity of a public official after the appointment, it shall be deemed that the cause for disciplinary action under paragraph (1) 3 of the above Article can be deemed to be a cause for disciplinary action. Thus, it is justified that the Plaintiff offered a bribe by delivering the amount of KRW 10 million to the Seoul Metropolitan City superintendent of office through a third party, along with the personnel management commission, such as requesting the appointment as a principal school teacher or a public school teacher, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was investigated as a public school teacher by the prosecution while he was appointed as a public school teacher, and that fact was widely known through the media. However, even if the above act of giving a bribe was prior to the appointment as a public school teacher, it shall not be deemed that the above act would seriously damage the body and body after the appointment as a public school teacher.

B. The starting point of the statute of limitations on disciplinary action under Article 83-2(1) of the State Public Officials Act should be calculated from the time when the Plaintiff was appointed as a public official, not from the time when the Plaintiff offered a bribe, but from the time when the Plaintiff was appointed as a public official, since a series of acts until the Plaintiff acquired the status of the public official, if the Plaintiff was appointed as a public official

(a) Article 78 of the State Public Officials Act;

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the Superintendent of Education

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu13269 delivered on October 12, 1989

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 78(1)3 of the State Public Officials Act provides that the time when a public official commits an act detrimental to his body or dignity, regardless of whether it is inside or outside the scope of his duties, shall be one of the disciplinary reasons. According to Article 78(2) and (3) of the same Act, if a public official subject to other Acts with respect to disciplinary action is appointed as a public official subject to the provisions on disciplinary action of the State Public Officials Act, or if a public official with special career service is appointed as a public official with career service, disciplinary reasons under other Acts prior to such appointment shall be deemed to have occurred from the date on which the cause for disciplinary action under this Act occurred. Thus, in light of the purport of the relevant provisions, except for the cases of paragraphs (2) and (3) of the above Article, the act during which a public official is appointed as a state public official shall not, in principle, be deemed to have caused disciplinary reasons under Article 78(1)3 of the State Public Officials Act.

Because Article 56, Article 61, and Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act impose the duty of good faith, the duty of integrity, and the duty of the maintenance of dignity on the public official, and if the act before the appointment of the public official affects the above duty of the public official after the appointment and damages the person's prestige or body, it can not be a ground for disciplinary action against the public official just because it is an act before appointment.

Therefore, as duly determined by the court below, when the plaintiff is in office as a teacher of a senior national school, Seoul, which is a private school on April 2, 1986, the court below delivered a bribe of 10 million won to the non-party 1, who was at the office of education of Seoul, along with the personnel management request for appointment as a teacher of a school or a public school, and delivered a bribe of 10 million won to the non-party 2, who was at the office of education of Seoul. On March 1, 1987, when he was appointed as a teacher of a citizen school of the Kingdom of Seoul, which is a public school, under the prosecution on August 18, 1988, when he was investigated as a bribe and was widely notified through the press, even if he was prior to the appointment as a teacher of a public school, the act of offering the above bribe cannot be said to have significantly damaged the body and the above body of the teacher after the appointment as a teacher of a public school. Therefore, it is justified that the defendant was subject to the disciplinary cause of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s act of offering the above bribe cannot be a ground for disciplinary action immediately on the ground that it was an act before being appointed as a public official, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on grounds of disciplinary action under the

In addition, if the plaintiff offered a bribe with an illegal solicitation and was appointed as a public official (Article 44 of the State Public Officials Act provides that no person shall intentionally influence the appointment) with respect to the appointment of a public official, a series of acts up to acquiring the status of a public official constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under the State Public Officials Act. Thus, the starting point of the statute of limitations for disciplinary action under Article 83-2(1) of the State Public Officials Act should be calculated from March 1, 1987, which the plaintiff appointed as a public official, should be calculated from March 1, 1987, and it cannot be said that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting point of the statute of limitations for disciplinary action against the plaintiff on April 2, 196. All arguments are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment 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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)