In a case where the commissioner of a district police agency took three months of suspension from office against Gap on the ground that police officers Gap appointed as patrol officers and during the period of probationary appointment caused a traffic accident by making a false fingerprint registration and drunk driving, and subsequently ex officio dismissal was conducted in accordance with a resolution of the regular appointment review committee, the case holding that the above suspension from office and ex officio dismissal cannot be deemed as a case where the discretionary power is exceeded or abused because the above suspension from office and ex officio dismissal are considerably inappropriate under social

It is a matter of ex officio dismissal in accordance with a resolution of the regular appointment review committee, following the fact that police officers Gap appointed as patrol officers and during the probationary appointment period caused a traffic accident by making a false fingerprint registration and drunk driving.

The case holding that considering the fact that Gap's act of fingerprinting overtime service cannot be deemed as a faithful service duty person as a police officer, who is a whole citizen, and the traffic accident of a police officer Gap is a traffic accident causing physical damage by reducing drinking driving even though high compliance and morality are required due to the characteristics of police officers who need to prevent, control and investigate traffic crimes, such as drinking driving, and the degree of taking the driving license is much higher than the criteria for cancelling driver's license, and it is difficult to view that the disposition of suspension from office considerably lacks validity under social norms, and it does not fall under cases where the discretionary power is exceeded or abused, and that it is difficult for the commissioner of a district police agency to take into account the legislative purport of Article 20 (2) of the Decree that it is considerably unreasonable to appoint a police officer beyond the limits of discretionary power when taking into account that it is difficult for the police officer to take into account the legislative purport of ex officio dismissal and appointment of a police officer, which is considerably unreasonable.

Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act; Article 10(1) and (3) of the Police Officials Act; Article 22(1) of the Police Officials Act; Article 20(2) of the Decree on Appointment of Police Officials; Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Law, Attorneys Yang Dong-dong et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu Commissioner of Local Police Agency

December 5, 2018

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

All of the disposition of suspension from office (three months) rendered by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on March 14, 2018 and the disposition of dismissal from office made on May 2, 2018 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's status

On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff was appointed as a police officer on July 3, 2015, and served in the ○○ Police Station under the Daegu Metropolitan City Police Agency (hereinafter “Seoul Local Police Agency”) from September 7, 201 to △△△△△△△△△.

B. Prior disciplinary action against the plaintiff

1) On March 7, 2016, the General Disciplinary Committee of the ○○○ Police Station (hereinafter “Disciplinary Committee”) decided to dismiss the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Fidelity), 57 (Duty of Good Faith), and 63 (Duty of Maintain Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 경찰공무원은 공사생활을 막론하고 제반 법령과 각종 지시명령을 준수하고 성실한 복무 및 품위를 유지하여야 한다. 가. 원고는 2016. 2. 29. 18:00경부터 22:00경까지 초과근무를 신청한 후, 경사 소외 1, 경장 소외 2, 순경 소외 3 등과 함께 대구 수성구 범어1동에 있는 풍천장어식당에서 소주 5병, 장어 1접시, 메밀전 1개를 나눠 먹고, 그날 21:21경 ○○○○경찰서 현관에 설치된 초과근무 지문인식기에 경사 소외 1, 경장 소외 2와 함께 지문등록을 하였다(이하 ‘제1 비위행위’라고 한다). 나. 이어서 원고는 소외 1, 소외 2, 소외 3 등과 함께 대구 수성구 범어4동에 있는 비어 카이저 식당에서 소주 1병, 나가사키 짬뽕 1개, 음료수 2병을 나눠 먹은 후 23:00경 그 식당을 나왔다. 원고는 2016. 3. 1. 00:15경 혈중알코올농도 0.161%의 술에 취한 상태에서 대구 수성구 범어1동에 있는 대구여자고등학교 담장 주변에 주차된 자신의 모닝 승용차(자동차등록번호 1 생략)를 운행하다가 반대편에서 오는 액센트 승용차와 접촉하여 교통사고를 발생케 하였다(이하 ‘제2 비위행위’라고 한다).

2) On March 8, 2016, the Defendant imposed a disciplinary measure on the dismissal of the Plaintiff according to the result of the said disciplinary measure.

3) On November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the above dismissal disposition against the Defendant with the Daegu District Court (2017Guhap23911), following the review of the Appeal Appeal Committee for Teachers, which was dissatisfied with the above dismissal disposition (hereinafter “prior action”).

4) On March 31, 2017, the said court rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff that the dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff was unlawful on the ground that the pertinent disciplinary disposition was rendered in excess of the discretionary power or when it was abused.

On February 9, 2018, the above judgment dismissed the defendant's appeal by the Daegu High Court (2017Nu5202) and the period of the appeal became final and conclusive after the lapse of the period of appeal.

C. Suspension disposition against the defendant (three months)

1) On March 13, 2018, the Disciplinary Committee again decided to take a disciplinary measure for three months of suspension from office under Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act against the Plaintiff on the same ground as the above “B. 1” and Article 78(1) of the State Public Officials Act

2) On March 14, 2018, the Defendant imposed a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff for three months of suspension from office (hereinafter “instant disposition of suspension from office”).

D. Disposition by dismissal of the defendant

1) On May 2, 2018, the Daegu Local Police Agency’s Regular Appointment Review Committee (hereinafter “regular Appointment Review Committee”) decided that the Plaintiff ex officio dismissal on May 2, 2018 for the following reasons.

The Plaintiff, included in the main text, has a positive opinion on work performance, affiliated companies, responsible guidance officers, and the written opinion on the recommendation for appointment of a police station, is presented as eligible for appointment. However, the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action for three months of suspension from office due to a ground for ex officio dismissal stipulated in Article 20(2)1 of the Decree on the Appointment of Police Officers, particularly a ground for disciplinary action, which meets the standards for the specification of the grounds for disciplinary action. Moreover, there is a need to evaluate these misconducts of a probationary police officer in accordance with a more strict standard. In addition, the degree of violation of the Plaintiff’s drinking driving and the possibility of criticism is significant as it is recognized as a social issue. Therefore, the regular appointment examination committee determines that the Plaintiff is not suitable for the appointment of a regular police officer in order to strengthen the regular appointment procedure, establish

2) On May 2, 2018, the Defendant rendered an ex officio dismissal in accordance with Article 20(2) of the Decree on the Appointment of Police Officials (hereinafter “instant ex officio dismissal”) to the Plaintiff on May 2, 2018.

(e) Procedures of the previous trial;

The Plaintiff, who is dissatisfied with the instant disposition of suspension from office and ex officio dismissal, filed a petition for review with the Ministry of Personnel Management review committee on April 2, 2018 and May 17, 201, but the petition for review of the appeal was entirely dismissed on August 19, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the disposition of suspension from office or ex officio dismissal is legitimate;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant disposition of suspension from office ought to be revoked on the ground that it constitutes a case where the discretionary power is exceeded or its abuse is abused for the following reasons.

① The Plaintiff was subject to dismissal disposition due to each of the instant misconducts and was actually deprived of police officers’ status during the period of two years of administrative litigation, and was living without receiving any benefits. Therefore, the Plaintiff was already subject to sufficient disadvantageous treatment.

Therefore, the suspension disposition of this case is considered to be an unfavorable measure for the same reason, so it violates the principle of double punishment prohibition.

② Since the Plaintiff’s misconduct is a case involving concurrent management and supervision over the Defendant’s side, such as punishment of the responsible guidance official system, and structural neglect of the police officer on probationary appointment, etc., the Plaintiff’s misconduct shall not be treated only as a deviation from the Plaintiff’s individual.

③ In addition, in full view of the following: (a) the distance during which the Plaintiff was driving under the influence of alcohol is less than 2 meters; (b) the victim’s physical damage is very insignificant; (c) the Plaintiff faithfully paid a fine of KRW 4 million; (b) there was no record of punishment or disciplinary action due to driving under the influence of alcohol; (c) the police officers of the vessel who registered his fingerprint with the Plaintiff who registered his fingerprint in a false manner was subject to a relatively minor disciplinary disposition; (d) the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of suspension from office excessively heavy compared to those of the Plaintiff; and (e) the Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman after the Plaintiff was appointed as a policeman; and (e) the Plaintiff was on the part of the Plaintiff, and (e) the Plaintiff was on the part of the Plaintiff, and (e) the Plaintiff was on the duty of care

2) In light of the various circumstances seen earlier, the instant ex officio dismissal disposition is unlawful as it constitutes an abuse of discretion or discretion, and thus ought to be revoked as it constitutes an abuse of discretion.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the absence of disputes between the parties or the whole purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap's 3 through 6 (including paper numbers), Eul's 1 through 9.

1) Grounds for occurrence of each of the instant misconducts

On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for night overtime service from around 18:00 to 22:00, and dumped with Nonparty 1, police officer, etc., along with Nonparty 2, police officer, and Nonparty 3, etc., who dump in Daegu Suwon-gu Modong, and dump 5 soldiers by dividing dump.

On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff moved to the ○○○ Police Station on February 29, 2016, and considered that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 registered their fingerprints in an excessive work fingerprints registration machine installed in the ○○○○○ Police Station. Accordingly, the Plaintiff also registered their fingerprints, and transferred all of them to the ○○○○○ Police Station, which was located in the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and then

On March 1, 2016, at around 00:15, the Plaintiff driven his mother-learning car (automobile registration No. 1 omitted) parked in front of the fence of the Daegu Lane High School, Daegu, Daegu, 15, and moved approximately two meters of a motor vehicle to the seat of the ○○○○ Police Station, which Nonparty 4 driven in front of the left-hand part of the car (automobile registration No. 2 omitted) driven by Nonparty 4 from the opposite part.

As a result, the police officer who sent to the scene upon the report of Nonparty 4 conducted a drinking test against the plaintiff, it was confirmed that the blood alcohol level of the plaintiff at the time was 0.161%.

Nonparty 4 suffered physical damage equivalent to approximately KRW 553,00 of the automobile repair cost due to the foregoing traffic accident, and the Plaintiff agreed to compensate Nonparty 4 for the said damage and only agreed to do so.

2) Criminal punishment against the plaintiff

As above, the Plaintiff filed a summary order (Seoul District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 3789) due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and received a summary order of KRW 4 million on April 1, 2016, and the said summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

3) Instructions concerning the defendant's operation of overtime work

On July 13, 2015, the defendant ordered the Daegu Regional Police Agency to eradicate the excessive work by recognizing fingerprints with false or other unlawful means, and to change the fair and transparent operation of the excessive work system.

4) Plaintiff’s completion of education

Before the occurrence of the second misconduct, the Plaintiff received instructions and education on the prohibition of drinking driving at three times from November 26, 2015 to February 1, 2016.

In particular, on January 11, 2016, the defendant emphasized and instructed the departments and departments belonging to the Daegu Regional Police Agency, police stations, and direct posts to establish the working discipline during the period of strengthening the boundaries as follows:

Although there was an order to establish a working discipline due to the issuance of an order to strengthen the boundary of violations on the establishment of emergency preparedness related to the nuclear experiment of North Korea contained in the main text, the recent drinking driving cases occurred. Each department or officer in charge or chief of the police station, and the chief of the police station, who is in charge, will take full charge of the service management of the employees under his/her jurisdiction, as follows. All acts of impairing the dignity of public officials, such as drinking-free driving, etc. for each department or group of ○○ or group, which prohibit drinking accompanied by drinking

(v) other extenuating circumstances.

A) The Plaintiff did not have been subject to any disciplinary action or criminal punishment prior to the occurrence of each of the instant misconducts. After being appointed as a policeman, the Plaintiff obtained the qualification certificate of Grade 2 as a counselor, Grade 2 as a family psychological counselor, and Grade 2 as a child psychological counselor.

B) On April 30, 2018, Nonparty 5 prepared and submitted a written opinion to the Defendant on April 30, 2018, stating that “The appointment of the Defendant is inappropriate for appointment as a regular police officer, taking into account the purport of the Guidelines for Personnel Management of Probationed Police Officials, which is an extension of the recruitment phase that determines eligibility for regular appointment, such as qualities and ability to perform duties difficult to verify during the recruitment process, and the fact that he/she was subject to disciplinary action during the three-month period due to illegal driving, which is highly likely

C) On March 8, 2018, the Defendant paid 49,407,150 won to the Plaintiff, which was not paid from March 8, 2016 to February 28, 2018.

D. Whether the suspension disposition of this case is legitimate

1) Relevant legal principles

When disciplinary action is imposed on a person subject to disciplinary action who is a public official, it shall be placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action, and the disciplinary action as a person having authority to take the disciplinary action shall be illegal only when it is deemed that the disciplinary action as a person having authority to take the disciplinary action has exceeded the limit of the discretion or is abused.

In addition, in order for a disciplinary action against a public official to have remarkably lost validity under the social norms, the content and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, administrative purpose intended to be achieved by the disciplinary action, criteria for the determination of disciplinary action, etc. should be considered as cases where the disciplinary action can be objectively and objectively deemed unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du10895, Oct. 11, 2012).

2) Determination on issues

In full view of the facts examined above and the following circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, even when considering all favorable circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the suspension disposition of this case significantly lacks validity under the social norms and thus constitutes an abuse of discretion.

A) The first misconduct act is that the Plaintiff registered fingerprinting in excess of his/her fingerprints for the purpose of receiving overtime service allowances in a false manner. This is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s registered fingerprinting in excess of his/her fingerprints as a police officer subject to probationary appointment without any particular consideration, even though the Plaintiff reported that the police officer was engaged in the service as a police officer subject to probationary appointment, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff is a faithfully serving person

B) A traffic accident, which is a second misconduct, constitutes a serious criminal act that may harm the lives and property of an unspecified number of people as well as the person in question. In particular, since police officers have official authority and responsibility to prevent, regulate, and investigate traffic crimes, such as drinking driving, they require high compliance and morality due to the characteristics of their duties. The Plaintiff did not make efforts to avoid driving under the influence of alcohol, such as leaving a substitute driving engineer.

Rather, the Plaintiff is causing a traffic accident causing physical damage by driving under the influence of alcohol, and the degree of his driving is 0.161% alcohol level, and the Plaintiff is much higher than the criteria for the revocation of the driver’s license (0.1%) and thus, its social criticism is highly likely.

C) Furthermore, in relation to the nuclear experiment of North Korea, the time when the Plaintiff driven alcohol was to refrain from drinking themselves for the period during which “the direction for the establishment of a work discipline during the duration of strengthening the boundary” was particularly made. In addition, the Plaintiff applied for excess work hours in a false manner and did not work overtime in the actual manner while drinking together with the police officer in charge of drinking alcohol.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the negligence of supervision and supervision by the police officers or the responsible guidance officer provided a major cause for each of the misconducts in this case.

However, in full view of the following various circumstances, it is difficult to view that the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to exempt or reduce the Plaintiff’s liability for the wrongful act of this case.

① Even though considering the fact that the Plaintiff is a probationary police officer in need of instruction and supervision by the appointing authority, etc., and that the police organization was difficult to easily refuse the demand for drinking by the police officers on board, it is clear that the Plaintiff is not only an adult who should be fully responsible for his/her act, but also a position where he/she should be legally responsible for his/her illegal act, which is a police officer who requires high morality and ethics.

② Also, the second misconduct not only is an act irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s work, but also is a serious criminal act that occurred in the private autonomy where the Plaintiff can control himself/herself, and it has the character of personal deviation that is difficult to see due to the structural problems of the organization or system or the fault of a third party.

③ Even if the Plaintiff committed each of the instant irregularities as a probationary police officer, it is recognized in the citizen’s view as well as in the ordinary police officer’s misconduct, thereby seriously damaging the citizen’s trust in all police officers. Therefore, strict disciplinary action, such as a regular police officer’s misconduct, is necessary.

D) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant suspension disposition violated the principle of double punishment.

According to Article 78-3 (1) of the State Public Officials Act, where the appeals review committee or court has made a decision or has received a decision or a decision to nullify or revoke (including an order of cancellation) disciplinary action or disciplinary surcharge due to a disciplinary action or disciplinary surcharge excessive, the person having authority to impose the disciplinary action shall again request a resolution to impose disciplinary action or disciplinary surcharge: Provided, That where a disciplinary action or disciplinary surcharge is excessive, a resolution may not be requested for disciplinary action against a decision or a reduction or reprimand of disciplinary action or disciplinary surcharge (including an order of cancellation

However, according to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment of the court that the dismissal disposition is revoked due to the reason that the disciplinary action is excessive in the preceding lawsuit, and accordingly, the above dismissal disposition becomes invalid.

Therefore, the Defendant again requested the Disciplinary Committee to make a resolution on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78-3(1) of the State Public Officials Act. In light of the purport of the administrative decision regarding the preceding lawsuit, the Disciplinary Committee made a resolution on minor suspension from office more than that of dismissal to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant issued the instant suspension from office

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the instant suspension disposition violated the principle of double punishment solely on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered disadvantages, such as not engaging in duties as a police officer during the administrative litigation, and not receiving benefits from time to time, etc.

E) Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the determined criteria for disciplinary action are unreasonable in a case where a person having authority to take an internal disciplinary action determines the criteria for disciplinary action and accordingly takes disciplinary action, the pertinent disciplinary action cannot be deemed considerably unreasonable under social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du13767, Nov. 10, 201).

According to Articles 4(1), 8(1), and 9(3)5 of the Regulations on Disciplinary Measures, etc. of Police Officers, and [Attachment Table 1] and [Attachment Table 3] “Standards for a disciplinary decision on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a police officer,” and “Standards for a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action, in cases where a traffic accident causing physical damage due to a drinking driving has been caused, the standards for the disciplinary action shall be dismissed-up, etc., (2) in cases where the degree of a compulsory violation is weak and intentional, the standards for a disciplinary decision on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a person who has the authority to make a disciplinary action or the Disciplinary Committee shall be in suspension from office, and (3) in cases where two or more violations are concurrent, a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a disciplinary action on a more level than that on which the responsibility

However, since the Plaintiff caused a traffic accident that causes physical damage due to drunk driving, the standard of disciplinary action is also deemed to correspond to “retirement-Gracing, etc.” based on the second misconduct. Moreover, since the Plaintiff’s act of violation of two duties is competition by having his fingerprints registered in an excessive work period and having his fingerprints registered in an excessive work period, the Defendant may take a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff at the highest level above the standard of disciplinary action, and in this case, the relevant disciplinary action may not be mitigated.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the instant suspension disposition belongs to the scope of the criteria for disciplinary action determined by the regulations on disciplinary action, etc. of police officers, and thus, it is difficult to find any special circumstances, such as that the above criteria for disciplinary action are unreasonable.

F) The Plaintiff asserts that Nonparty 1, who committed the first misconduct with himself, committed the second misconduct, was unjust by making the disposition of heavy suspension from office only to himself even though he was subject to the disposition of reprimand.

However, in addition to the first misconduct, the Plaintiff committed the second misconduct, and in particular, the Defendant’s inside and outside specified the disciplinary criteria on drunk driving, etc. and prohibits it more strictly. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the instant suspension disposition violated the principle of equality solely on the basis of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

G) If a police officer is not subject to strict sanctions, it is difficult to eradicate the police officer's drinking driving, and there is a high risk that the police officer's health will be promoted as well as that of the people with respect to the duty of regulating the drinking driving of police officers.

Comprehensively taking account of such various circumstances, the instant suspension disposition cannot be deemed to have violated the principle of proportionality due to the significant imbalance between the disadvantage of the Plaintiff and the public interest that the Defendant intends to achieve.

E. Whether the ex officio dismissal of this case is legitimate

1) Contents of the relevant provisions

According to Article 10(1) and (3) of the Police Officials Act, when a police officer is newly appointed as a Superintendent or a lower-ranking police officer, he/she shall be appointed as a probation for one year, and he/she shall be appointed as a regular police officer on the day following the expiration of the period.

In addition, according to Article 20(2) of the Decree on the Appointment of Police Officials, where a probationary police officer falls under grounds for disciplinary action (1), (2) where the result of education and training under Article 21(1) is below 60% of the full score, or records are extremely poor, or (3) where it is deemed inappropriate to appoint a regular police officer on the ground that it falls under any of the cases where the rating point of the elements of rating 2 under Article 7(2) of the Regulations on the Appointment of Police Officials is less than 50% of the full score, the appointment authority or appointment-recommendation authority may dismiss the relevant probationary police officer, or request the removal of the relevant police officer

2) Determination on issues

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the argument in the instant case, the ex officio dismissal disposition in the instant case cannot be deemed as exceeding the discretionary power or an abuse thereof, deeming that it is inappropriate for the Defendant to appoint the Plaintiff as a regular police officer even if all favorable circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff were considered.

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion on this part.

A) Since the probationary appointment system has certain limitations in excluding disqualified persons in the employment phase or after regular appointment due to the nature of public officials, the purpose of the probationary appointment system is to ensure people's trust in the appointment of regular police officials by giving one year of status and duties of a position to be assigned and observing the qualities, duties, etc. of police officers and examining eligibility for appointment as a regular police officer after examining eligibility for appointment as a regular police officer.

B) In addition, the purpose of Article 20(2) of the Decree on Appointment of Police Officials is to employ clean and decent police officers by providing that those who are inappropriate to be appointed as regular police officers, such as those who fall under grounds for disciplinary action or who have poor educational training records or work performance records, etc., may be early excluded.

C) However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff not only driven a motor vehicle under severe influence than the criteria for the revocation of the driver’s license, but also caused physical damage to the motor vehicle and caused the act of misconduct falling under the grounds for the disciplinary action.

Accordingly, the Defendant took into account all of the facts that the Plaintiff’s evaluation opinion of the work performance, the affiliated companies, the competent directors, and the members of the task force was excellent, and thus, issued ex officio dismissal disposition in this case. Considering the legislative intent of the probationary police officer system as seen earlier, such determination by the Defendant

D) Although the Plaintiff is unable to serve as a police officer any longer due to the ex officio dismissal of the instant case, it is difficult to view that there is a significant imbalance between the two legal interests in comparison with the Defendant’s public interest in order to employ a decent and able police officer only at a disadvantage that the Plaintiff cannot serve as a police officer.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Han Jae-in (Presiding Judge)