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 was promoted as a police official on August 5, 2016 to a slope, and thereafter, from February 2, 2015 to February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff is serving with female juveniles in the Gyeonggi-do North Korean Office B police station in Gyeonggi-do.

B. On March 8, 2018, the Central Disciplinary Committee of Police Officers of the National Police Agency was requested by the Defendant or the head of the pertinent police agency to make a resolution on disciplinary action on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of “influence of sexual intercourse and workplace” as follows constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under each subparagraph of Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act by violating Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity) and 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act.

From October 28, 2017 to October 30, 2017, the Plaintiff (33 years of age) deemed the head of the team at around 14:00 on the same day to be “I will work outside Korea for the verification of persons subject to management of sex crime,” while traveling in Jeju-do for 2-day to 3-day, and making it known to the same room after August 2017. In particular, the Plaintiff (33 years of age) deemed the head of the team at around 14:00 on the same day as “I will work outside Korea for the verification of persons subject to management of sex crime,” while moving from the office to the Kimpo Airport, and leaving the workplace without permission, such as boarding the 15:15 Mapo Kim-ju Kim-ju, together with C.

The Central Disciplinary Committee for Police Officers of the National Police Agency decided on March 15, 2018 after taking the Plaintiff’s statement procedure, and decided on March 23, 2018, the Defendant issued a reprimand against the Plaintiff on March 23, 2018 pursuant to Article 78(1)1 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed a petition for appeal review with the Ministry of Personnel Management, but the said petition was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 does not exist as a ground for disposition C.