beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman on November 3, 1990 and promoted to the police officer on September 1, 201, and served in the Daegu Regional Police Agency B from January 29, 201 to January 23, 2018, and currently served in the Daegu Regional Police Agency C police box.
B. On July 26, 2018, the Daegu Job Police Station General Disciplinary Committee decided to reprimand the Plaintiff on the ground that the act of misconduct with the following contents (hereinafter “the act of misconduct with respect to the violation of the order of unification,” “the act of misconduct with respect to the violation of the order of unification,” “the act of misconduct with respect to the violation of the order of unification,” “the act of misconduct with respect to the violation of the order of unification,” “the act of misconduct with respect to the negligence with respect to the neglect of duty and the prohibition of monetary rent,” was a violation of Articles 56 (Duty
On September 2017, the Plaintiff in violation of the direction of unification of the inquiry of the instant case received a call from the Daegu Police Agency B 1 Team of the Police Agency of the Daegu Police Agency, which he had been aware of during the non-permanent work, and from the D that he had been aware of the non-permanent work of the scood scood ice club activities, etc. during the ten-year period, “The reason why he returned is that she would have returned to her team,” and notified the head of the team and the person in charge of the instant case that he was aware of E during the investigation due to the violation of the interest restriction law, such as sending her back to the office, and asking her head of the team and the person in charge of the instant case, who was aware of the fact that she was in the process of the inquiry of the instant case,
Although it was possible for the Plaintiff to determine that D could be subject to the Plaintiff’s award due to a violation of the Interest Limitation Act, the Automobile Management Act, etc., the Plaintiff attempted to lend money to F, who is the branch of F, to intervene in the claim and obligation that D could not have a normal time after moving D to F, during the working hours on October 19, 2017, and to borrow D from F, KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.