206Nu22189 Revocation of revocation of revocation of dismissal

00

Law Firm 000

Attorney 000

The Commissioner of Incheon Local Police Agency

Incheon District Court Decision 2006Guhap2125 Decided September 7, 2006

March 14, 2007

March 28, 2007

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's dismissal on November 2, 2005 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is appointed as a police officer on April 30, 1982, and from February 17, 2004, the Incheon Metropolitan City Area.

The Gyeyang Police Station, which belongs to the National Police Agency, worked as a slope at the Gyeyang Police Station.

B. The defendant instructs the police officers under his jurisdiction through various official questions, etc. to refrain from gambling.

The plaintiff also received daily culture education, etc. to prohibit gambling from his/her superior on several occasions.

was made.

C. The defendant, from the end of November 2004 to April 2005, the police officer, etc. twice a month from the end of April 2004 by the plaintiff.

Dogs, together with the real estate broker, at the office of Park 00, which is a real estate broker, Dogs from 00

Gabbling money (name butt money) and receiving money from 00 Dob0 to Dob00

In the absence of the request of the police officers, including the plaintiff, to pay it on behalf of the police officer;

20,000 won and 5 million won together with the inspector to give 00 and to prevent any gambling event from being disclosed.

violation of laws and subordinate statutes, damage their dignity, and violation of orders by doing any act, etc.

on the ground that the General Disciplinary Committee of the Incheon Metropolitan City is required to make a disciplinary resolution against the plaintiff.

In addition, the General Disciplinary Committee on November 1, 2005, the above act was conducted on November 1, 200, and Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and 57 of the State Public Officials Act

section 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) and Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the same Act are applicable thereto.

section 1(1)1, 2, and 3 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Disciplinary Action against the Plaintiff

on November 2, 2005, the defendant decided to dismiss the plaintiff, and accordingly disciplinary action against the dismissal of the plaintiff is taken against the defendant.

The disposition (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") was made.

[Evidence] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 9-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1 and 3;

The purport of all pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff was engaged in high saws and card play with police officers, etc., but this is a temporary entertainment.

money borrowed from 00 to 85 years of age is not all used for gambling and is currently 85 years of age;

Support for the elderly and being given official commendation 23 times or more while serving as police officer for 24 years, and the plaintiff and the plaintiff

The dismissal disposition was revoked in respect of 200 among the police officers subject to the dismissal and Kim 00, as well as the dismissal disposition:

Considering such circumstances as above, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretionary power.

I asserts.

(b) Relevant statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

(c) Facts of recognition;

(1) The plaintiff is effective in Gyeyang-gu Incheon for about six months from the end of November 2004 to April 2005.

At the office of 'the future construction of the real estate broker 00', which has the fourth floor of the 4th unit of sub-payment of the right of redemption, every two times a month.

Do Do 200, Yellow00, Sung 00, Kim 00, Do 00, and Do 1,000 and 2 points above basic 3 points, together with Do 200

1. He saw 1, 000 won each and saw saws.

(2) Police officers, including the Plaintiff, etc., have completed night duty and have difficulty to go to a gambling place, but they were originally unable to go to the gambling place.

The contact between the plaintiff who was in 100 and was in her friend with the other.

(3) The letter 00 lent gambling money referred to as 'wets buttts' on gambling, which is called 'wetts', to the gambling, and the origin

The High Court borrowed 9.5 million won on several occasions from 00 to 9.5 million won and used it for gambling funds.

(4) The letter 00 lending 50 million won to 00 by means of the introduction of Park 00

When it was impossible to do so, the police, including the plaintiff, from July 2005 to July 000, 000, together with the above police including the plaintiff.

It is necessary to pay back to the public the borrowed money of 00 in lieu of the borrowed money, taking the attitude that the public knew about gambling.

The plaintiff was able to gather the amount of KRW 20, 00, 00, 200, and 5 million and attempt to drink 00.

We also set up.

(5) On December 14, 2006, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspending indictment for habitual gambling.

[Evidence Evidence] Evidence Nos. 10 to 14, Evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including each number)

each (part) entry and the purport of the whole oral proceedings

D. Determination

(1) When a disciplinary action is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official;

Whether or not the person having authority over disciplinary action is at the discretion of the person having authority over disciplinary action, but the person having authority over disciplinary action is at the discretion.

The disciplinary action is remarkably inappropriate under the social norms, and it is beyond the discretion of the authority to take an action.

the disposition may be deemed unlawful only if it is found that it was or abused; and

In order to consider that disciplinary action against public officials has considerably lost validity in terms of social norms, detailed details

According to the case, the characteristics of the duties, the details and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, and the meaning of the disciplinary action.

when determining by comprehensively taking account of various factors, such as the administrative purpose intended to achieve and the criteria for disciplinary action;

such disciplinary action shall be deemed to be objectively and objectively unreasonable (or by law).

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Du16274 decided Dec. 21, 2006; 97Nu14637 decided Nov. 25, 1997

§ 5).

(2) In this case, the plaintiff is in the position of controlling the act of law.

In any case, any illegal act, such as gambling, etc., shall not be committed as a public official;

'Bts money' has been lent to the provider of butt money for a considerable period of time, and gambling has been conducted for a long time, and the provider of bat money has borrowed it.

There was a demand from the Plaintiff to pay the debt in full. Although the Plaintiff was on the part of its working hours, it is mainly after the end of working hours

Even if police officers and police officers of the same saw saw saws, and the money was not significant, such as the above,

In the event that strict disciplinary actions are not taken against police officers' gambling, the general public and the public;

To ensure that police officers with the thickness will cultivate the fairness in applying the law and the integrity of the law.

Therefore, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s assertion against the Plaintiff

The dismissal disposition is the nature and nature of the plaintiff's duties, the contents and nature of misconduct, the criteria for disciplinary action, and disciplinary action.

In light of the purpose, etc. of the guidance, the disciplinary action is objectively unreasonable;

It is not reasonable in light of social norms to regard it as a deviation or abuse of discretionary power, as it has considerably lost its validity.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed.

As such, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

of this section.

Judges Cho Jae-ho

Judges Kim Jong-young

Judges Park Jong-soo

Government-Related Acts and subordinate statutes

/ The State Public Officials Act

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)

Any public official shall obey any order of his superior officer with respect to the performance of his duties.

Article 63 (Duty to Maintain Dignity)

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

Article 69 (Ipso Facto Retirement) Where a public official falls under any subparagraph of Article 33, he/she shall retire ipso facto: Provided, That he/she shall retire under subparagraph 5 of the same Article.

this shall not apply in any case.

Article 78 (Grounds for Disciplinary Sanction)

(1) When a public official falls under any of the following subparagraphs, a resolution on disciplinary action shall be requested and the result of such resolution on disciplinary action shall be made:

shall take a disciplinary action according to the

1. Where he violates this Act and any order issued under this Act;

2. Violation of official duties (including duties imposed on the status of public officials by other Acts and subordinate statutes; hereinafter the same shall apply).

When he neglects his duties;

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

Article 79 (Types of Disciplinary Action) Disciplinary action shall be classified into removal, dismissal, suspension from office, salary reduction, and reprimand.

Decree on Disciplinary Action against Police Officers

Article 16 (Determination of Disciplinary Action) In making a decision on a disciplinary case, the conduct, performance, and service record of a person subject to deliberation on disciplinary action;

It is necessary to take into account the opinions of persons who have requested public, good attendance, and resolution on disciplinary action.

(1) Regulations on the Disciplinary Punishment, etc. of Public Officials (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 282 on May 16, 2005)

Article 2 (Standards for Decision on Disciplinary Action)

(1) The Disciplinary Committee shall punish a discipline accused person in the form of misconduct, degree of misconduct, seriousness of negligence, conduct conduct of deliberation, work performance, and merits.

A disciplinary case shall be resolved according to the criteria for disciplinary action determined in attached Table 1, in consideration of the enemy, situation, other circumstances, etc.

(2) When the Disciplinary Committee makes a decision on a disciplinary case, it shall maintain fairness in the performance of public duties by reducing irregularities and irregularities.

and to realize a clean public service society, to establish a lecture, and to receive money and valuables related to his/her duties and to conduct intensive purification;

of this section. The person must be subject to strict censures.

Article 4 (Reduction of Disciplinary Action)

(1) Where a person for whom a resolution on disciplinary action is requested has contributed to any of the following meritorious services, the Disciplinary Committee shall be listed in attached Table 3:

Disciplinary action may be mitigated according to the criteria for mitigation of disciplinary action: Provided, That the relevant public official shall be subject to disciplinary action or other rules;

Where there is a fact that a warning has been received, the merits before the disciplinary action or warning has been taken shall be excluded from the public register subject to mitigation.

(1) The grounds for disciplinary action under the provision of Article 83-2 (1) of the State Public Officials Act are three years or more, and they shall be subject to intensive purification.

No disciplinary action shall be mitigated against misconduct.

1. A meritorious service awarded any decoration or medal under the Awards and Decorations Act;

2. A public official who has received an official commendation by the Prime Minister or more in accordance with the Government Commendation Regulations: Provided, That a public official of Grade VI or lower at the time of the misconduct;

The head of the central administrative agency (including the head of the agency equivalent to the Vice Minister; hereinafter the same shall apply) who is a research officer, a consultant, a consultant, or a technical public official.

Award received as a prize;

3. Public officials selected as exemplary public officials pursuant to the exemplary public officials' regulations;

(2) The Disciplinary Committee shall be caused by negligence in the course of faithfully and actively performing the affairs of misconduct of a person whose disciplinary resolution is requested.

If it is deemed that a disciplinary action has occurred, the disciplinary action shall be mitigated according to the criteria for mitigation of disciplinary action in attached Table 3 in consideration of the

of the corporation.

[Attachment 1] Standard 1 (Relation to Article 2)

A person shall be appointed.

[Attachment 3] Standard Table 3 (Relation to Article 4)

A person shall be appointed.