1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 26, 1982, the Plaintiff was appointed as a senior police officer among police officers, and was promoted to the reduction on July 1, 2013, and served as B and C from July 15, 2013.

The Plaintiff purchased and leased the second floor D’s 17 December 2002 building located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Daejeon-gun on or around April 2009, the Plaintiff did not take measures, such as termination of the contract, even though he was notified of the above fact on or around June 2009, when the lessee E (the age of 52) was controlled by the police due to suspicion that the lessee performed the similarity act. On April 27, 2014, the Plaintiff continued to lease his building with the knowledge of the fact that the lessee is conducting the sexual traffic business, such as recontrol on suspicion that E performed the similarity act.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant act of violating the first convenience”) . - The entertainment room operator, who leased his/her building, failed to properly manage the illegal business, even though he/she did not properly control the illegal business, such as regulating twice the game machine due to suspicion that the game machine was opened or altered.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant 2nd act”) B.

On May 12, 2014, following the resolution of the ordinary disciplinary committee of police officers of the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency, the defendant committed a disciplinary action against the plaintiff by applying Article 78 (1) 1, 2, and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the plaintiff committed a violation of Article 56 (Duty of Good Faith), Article 57 (Duty of Fidelity), and Article 63 (Duty of Fidelity) of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that he/she committed a violation of the act of harming the dignity of a building at an illegal business establishment (hereinafter referred to as "the instant misconduct").

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the request and filed a petition review on July 10, 2014, and the appeals review committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration rendered a decision on August 19, 2014 that “the removal from office as of May 12, 2014 shall be changed to the removal from office.”

"Disciplinary action taken on May 12, 2014, which was mitigated due to dismissal," is "the action of this case".

(ii) [Ground of recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 11 to 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply);

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. This.