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 appointed as a policeman on April 18, 1987 and served as the head of the Sungnam Police Station B from July 14, 2014 to work as the head of the Sungnam Police Station Team.

B. On April 4, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition for one-month reduction of salary (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 78(1)1 and 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the grounds that the Plaintiff violated Articles 56 (Duty of Good Faith) and 63 (Duty of Maintenance of Dignity) of the State Public Officials Act, following the grounds for disciplinary action as follows.

The grounds for disciplinary action are as follows: (a) between the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency’s expense and the duty of the auxiliary police officer on February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff 20:10 to 21:40, and (b) the Plaintiff gets a taxi after drinking four o-gus at the “Dcafeteria” located in Ansan-gu C.

In the course of moving to the Do newsletter by getting down in the vicinity of the Sudwon Station, around 22:30 on the 1st day of the same day, approximately 500 meters away from the Hadang-si E E-ro to the way front of the I apartment house Hadang City, while getting in the H business taxi operated by G in the front of the F-ro located in the Gu E-si, and the victim is asked to "where the destination is?"

Ham. Hambing this wre, wred the victim’s left side by drinking once (hereinafter “instant disciplinary ground”), and 22:40 on the same day, expressed the victim’s 112 report and expressed the victim’s king police box K, etc., who called “Woo-gu Hamb and Non Han the police wre,” and expressed the victim’s desire to “Woo-gu Ham and Non Han the police wre” to the police officer’s dignity as a police officer, such as the victim’s arrest of a flagrant offender.

The grounds for the second disciplinary action of this case are referred to as "the second disciplinary action of this case"

A person shall be appointed.

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the appeals review committee of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration, but was dismissed on October 24, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (including virtual number), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he did not assault G, a taxi driver, and was dispatched to the site.