The case holding that a dismissal disposition of a supervisory teacher is legitimate in the case of a prisoner's escape due to the autopsy or failure to conduct an autopsy;

The plaintiff's misconduct constitutes a disciplinary cause under Article 78 (1) 1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act, and the dismissal of the plaintiff is appropriate in light of the degree of the above misconduct, and even if the head of the detention center or the head of the detention center or the head of the other police station or the head of the other police station or the head of the other police office or the head of the other police office or the head of the other police office or the head of the other police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office or the head of the police office

Articles 78(1)1, 78(1)2, and 79 of the State Public Officials Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Yeongdeungpo-gu Director General

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu653 delivered on August 18, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that four inmates including the above non-indicted 1 and the above non-indicted 2 were deprived of their duties by threatening a prison officer from the Southern Branch of Seoul District Court of June 5 of the year, and judged that the above misconduct of the plaintiff constitutes a disciplinary cause under Article 78 (1) 1 and 2 of the State Public Officials Act. The court below's fact-finding or application of the above laws and regulations is just and there is no error of incomplete deliberation, mistake of facts, or application of laws and regulations in light of the records.

The issue is that the occurrence of the above escape accident is in violation of the law that aggravated the responsibility of the plaintiff for the escape accident caused by the neglect of duties by the chief of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Security Office, the director of the medical department, the director of the meeting division, and the escorting prison officers in charge of the court. However, even though the negligence of duties by the chief of the security division, etc. is recognized, such as the litigation, even though the negligence of duties by the chief of the security division, etc. is recognized, in particular, as a supervisory teacher of the police team operated for the purpose of the autopsy and autopsy, the plaintiff's responsibility which was not discovered in advance can not be mitigated or exempted.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal 2.

As determined by the court below, even though the plaintiff was appointed as a school teacher on March 11, 1968 and received four instances of commendation among them, in light of the level of vision of the plaintiff, the defendant's disposition to dismiss the plaintiff as a minor dismissal than that of the type of disciplinary action cannot be deemed to have exceeded the proper and proper limit of the disciplinary discretion. Thus, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit. The issue of this point is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)