The case holding that a disciplinary measure taken on the ground of three days of absence from office was a deviation from discretion.

Even if the three days of absence without permission is limited to the dismissal to avoid the investigation of the misconduct, the disciplinary discretion has been extremely deviating from the scope of the disciplinary discretion.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Park So-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu559 delivered on May 17, 1977

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. From January 20, 1968, the Plaintiff was appointed as a local public official of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the purpose of administrative assistance from July 1, 1973, the Plaintiff was suspected of having received money and valuables from the business operator in charge of accounting affairs in the Gwanak-gu Office's general affairs, and was absent from work after receiving a request from the situation-related agency for attendance for the purpose of avoiding this request. From February 10, 1976 to December 12 of the same month, the Plaintiff was absent from work for three days from 13th to 16th of the same month (on Sundays) of the same month. The Plaintiff's disposition was rejected without permission due to the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Plaintiff's comprehensive request for removal of the Plaintiff's official duties, such as removal from work, due to the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Plaintiff's comprehensive request for removal from work without permission.

2. The records reveal that the plaintiff's misconduct in receiving money and valuables was not discussed until the disciplinary action is taken (referring to the evidence No. 1-3). It cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's absence without permission from the court below due to the evidence of the court below, as follows. The plaintiff applied for sick leave from February 13, 1976 to the 16th of the same month, but the plaintiff had been sick between the 10th of the same month and the 12th of the same month. As the plaintiff applied for sick leave from the 10th of the same month, the public official service regulations (Ordinance No. 1339 of Jun. 1, 1963) attached a medical certificate of medical doctor with respect to the 5th or more days of the same month, and the above medical certificate was rejected due to the lack of accompanying the medical certificate, and there is no reason to view the plaintiff's absence without permission from the 3th of the above 3th of the above 3th of the above 3th of the above 3th of the absence.

However, Article 2 (1) of the Rules on Disciplinary Action against Local Public Officials at the time of the enforcement of the Act shall be deemed to be more than the UN reprimand in the event of the absence from office for more than three days without permission, and the service guidelines of the public official of the defendant city established before the disciplinary action is taken shall be removed in the event of the absence from office for more than seven days without permission. In addition, when considering the fact that the plaintiff received three commendations in the long-term continuous service for more than eight years, even if the three days of absence from office for the plaintiff's absence from office at the time of the expiration of the year's normal work, such as the date of household affairs, the three days of absence from office for the plaintiff's absence from office at the time of the extension of the year's normal work, it shall not be deemed to seriously deviate from the scope of the disciplinary discretion as the disciplinary action. Accordingly, the court below's decision that there is no illegality in the removal from office without evidence, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the scope of disciplinary action,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Kang Jin-hee (Presiding Justice)