1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a police officer who has been engaged in the duties of crime prevention, patrol, control, etc. from May 1, 2015 to July 4, 2016 under the Gyeonggicheon Police Station’s Living Safety and B police box.

B. On April 14, 2017, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a stay of sentence of suspension of qualification for a criminal act listed in attached Form 1, which was in the case of abandonment of duties in Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2016Kadan1311 on June 17, 2016, and the said judgment was finalized around that time.

C. On April 24, 2017, the chief of the Leecheon-gu Police Station requested the disciplinary committee under his/her jurisdiction to decide on disciplinary action against the misconduct listed in attached Table 1. On April 28, 2017, the disciplinary committee decided on the disposition of demotion on the ground that the misconduct listed in attached Table 1 falls under Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 63 (Duty of Good Faith), and Article 78 (1) 1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act, and the defendant ordered the Plaintiff to take the disposition of demotion on May 1, 2017.

On May 19, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the appeals review committee on the disciplinary action, and the appeals review committee decided on August 14, 2017 to change the period of suspension from office to three months.

E. On August 18, 2017, the Defendant changed the disposition of demotion into three months of suspension from office according to the decision of the appeals review committee.

(A) Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a provisional number), No. 11, 14, 18, 20, and 36, which was changed on May 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”), which was changed in three months of suspension from office, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s act does not constitute a waiver of duty, in light of the fact that a licenseless driving without a license for the grounds of disciplinary action is not immediately controlled on the job site, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff ultimately renounced his/her duty.

B. A warning disposition is issued to C, who has impliedly neglected the Plaintiff’s duty and has deserted his/her duty, as to the deviation and abuse of the discretionary authority.