1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff is a police officer who was appointed as a policeman on September 4, 199 and served in the information and security division of the Jinjin Police Station from February 17, 2014 after promotion to a slope on March 1, 2012.

From 20:00 to 22:00 on April 4, 2016 to 22:0, the Plaintiff: (a) was aware of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the D parking lot at the “D” restaurant located in Jungcheon-si, and (b) was in violation of Articles 148-2(1)2 and 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act due to the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Plaintiff’s demand for a rebreath test of drinking alcohol over about 48 minutes, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the D parking lot at approximately 700 to 80 meters in Seoul direction in order for the Plaintiff to drinking alcohol and to take care of her female-child-child-child.

On May 16, 2016, the Defendant issued a lecture (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s act violates Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity) and 57 (Duty of Fidelity) of the State Public Officials Act; (b) the Rules pertaining to disciplinary action against police officers, etc. on disciplinary action (attached Table 3); and (c) the Rules pertaining to disciplinary action against police officers, etc.; and (d) upon the resolution of the General Disciplinary Committee on Police Officers in the Police Station at the Police

On August 25, 2016, the appeal review committee filed by the Minister of Personnel Management to the appeals review committee, and the Minister of Personnel Management dismissed the plaintiff's appeal review.

Under the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case, the Plaintiff did not constitute a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (in compliance with Article 4(1) and [Attachment 3] Article 4(1) and [Attachment 3] Article 4(1) and [Attachment 3] of the Rules on the Disciplinary Action against Police Officials (in a case where a person refuses to take a drinking level) on the ground that it did not constitute a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (in a case where a person refuses to take a drinking level).