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 is a police officer who was appointed as a policeman on April 3, 199 and served in the Seoul Southern Police Station B box from July 10, 2014 after promotion to a slope on April 1, 2012.

On January 4, 2016, at around 09:30, the Plaintiff: (a) called to the reported scene of interference with business within C and demanded E to voluntarily carry out a police box to take a disposition of notice of interference with business; (b) however, the Plaintiff violated the procedure for arrest, such as sending the police box to the patrol box, and having the police box go back to the patrol box at around 10:17, when the Plaintiff refused to take the patrol box in mind.

(A) On January 18, 2016, at around 23:40, the Plaintiff: (a) called up to the 1112 reporting site of the Jongno-gu F Nompon; (b) arrested G as a flagrant offender of assault; (c) voluntarily attend the police box; and (d) upon arrival at the police box, G claimed damages, such as bating bat, etc., and demanded punishment; (c) thereby, the Plaintiff violated the procedure for arrest, such as arresting H voluntarily present as a flagrant offender at the police box around 23:50 at around 23:50.

(hereinafter referred to as "grounds for second disciplinary action"). (b)

On March 31, 2016, the Defendant issued a disciplinary measure for one month of salary reduction on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act by reason of the following disciplinary reasons.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disciplinary action, filed an appeal review with the appeals review committee, and the appeals review committee rendered a decision on July 6, 2016 to change the disposition of reduction of salary for one month as a reprimand.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), which was mitigated due to reprimand, on March 31, 2016, (hereinafter “instant disposition”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence A1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. With respect to the ground for the first disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s assertion, E was under the influence of alcohol, and is merely a police officer.